Yet most developers I work with just use it reflexively. This seems like one of the biggest issues with the npm ecosystem - the complete lack of motivation to write even trivial things yourself.

That said, very sophisticated next word predictors can and sometimes do write good code. It’s amazing some of the things they get right and then can turn around and make the weirdest dumbest mistakes.

It’s a tool. Sometimes it’s the right tool, sometimes it’s not.

No one will be eager to employ “ai-natives” who don’t understand what the llm is pumping out, they’ll just keep the seasoned engineers who can manage and tame the output properly. Similarly, no one is going to hire a bunch of prompt engineers to replace their accountants, they’ll hire fewer seasoned accountants who can confidently review llm output.

I use LLMs with best practices to program professionally in an enterprise every day, and even Opus 4.6 still consistently makes some of the dumbest architectural decisions, even with full context, complete access to the codebase and me asking very specific questions that should point it in the right direction.

I can go to a junkyard and assemble the parts to build a car. It may run, but for a thousand tiny reasons it will be worse than a car built by a team of designers and engineers who have thought carefully about every aspect of its construction.

I won’t argue that they charge a premium for memory and nvme, but I have never felt like I overpaid for my MacBooks or iPhones, in part because they last so long.

Seems like it would be impossible to prove substantial damages from one individual downloading an album, because you have only lost the potential single sale. No different than a kid stealing a single CD in terms of lost revenue.

Sharing the song on Kazaa or Limewire or Napster however means that they could have potentially illicitly provided the album to thousands or even millions of potential customers, more akin to stealing a truckload or even a whole store full of cds. In that case, it does seem plausible that you could prove (or at least convince a judge/jury) significant damages more in line with the exorbitant punitive sums.

Since they “caught” you by setting up fake peers that recorded your ip when sharing, I always assumed it was the latter that actually got people in trouble.