It’s for the best.
Learning how code works is better than getting an LLM to produce convincing looking code without anyone having an understanding of how it works.
LLMs just teach students to paint themselves into a corner without them even realising why bad things keep happening to them.
More like “why the fuck would I walk all the way across the city now that I own a car”
That’s a bad analogy.
Using an LLM for coding gives you an initial speed up with the trade off being skill atrophy, and a build up of cognitive debt in the project.
A better analogy would be the Greek government before their national debt crisis. It would have been better to invest in themselves, not lie about their own finances, and not kick the can down the road. But they kept lying and kicking the can down the road because it was easier in the short term. Of course, we all know how that turned out in the end.
You’re way quicker manually reviewing code compared to setting up everything just so that an LLM agent could do that.
Not only that, you’re better off reviewing the code manually so you understand how everything works.
If you understand how things work, you can plan things out.
If you don’t, you’ll end up painting yourself into a corner.
If you are scared of that, commercial products are your choice.
Commercial products are not a panacea for bad software quality.
Code openness and code quality are independent, orthogonal axes.
Probably a good time to consider helix or ki over vim
If the code is reviewed and tested, I don’t care if it was written by a human or machine.
That’s a pretty big assumption there buddy.
If they didn’t care enough to write the code, what makes you think they cared enough to review or test the code?
Are you sure about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtBI2BvPKBQ
Remember: if you don’t know enough about the topic in question to grade its answers then you’re not judging its ability to answer accurately, you’re judging it’s ability to convince you.