LLMs are good enough to solve my problems with flexbox. I gave a LLM a small self-contained flexbox-puzzle which I couldn't solve, and it solved it. The CSS it produced did the thing I asked.
> If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it
Hard disagree: Even if you aren't good at writing a function like `List (Maybe a) -> List a`, you can easily say whether the LLM suggestion was good or not.
If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples.
> If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples
This doesn't follow at all, maybe you just really suck.
It is entirely possible that a game AI that you find impossible to beat is trivial to beat for almost anyone with more experience than you have
Yes, there are chess engines that can beat the best chess players
However, most people couldn't possibly tell the difference between playing against the best chess engine in the world or a novice difficulty chess AI, because most people suck at chess
"It is better than I am" is a terrible metric to use to judge when you suck at that thing
I think the person above was alluding to the idea that the determination of whether or not LLMs are good at frontend development is the idea that frontend development is flexbox. That's like me saying "LLMs will replace all developers who work with databases because Claude was able to spit out a really complex SQL query."
> If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it
Hard disagree: Even if you aren't good at writing a function like `List (Maybe a) -> List a`, you can easily say whether the LLM suggestion was good or not.
If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples.