I think it's worth distinguishing 'LLM assistance' based on how much thought/effort went into the prompt.

e.g. It's popular to hate on "my colleague just copy-pasted my question into the LLM and copy-pasted the response". Because the colleague added nothing by copy-pasting. But if I'm unfamiliar with some system, I ask a question, and someone gives an LLM response prompted with the right key words, that's more useful than I could have gotten myself.

e.g. OP claims to hate using LLMs, but also said that he thought that by using LLMs he was able to get a tighter comment to post. -- I don't really see the problem with that? If you don't want to use the LLM, post the raw rant. If you care about the quality & think an LLM improved the result, then... well, I guess if he just copy-pasted the result without reading it, that'd be silly.

"Expectations of productivity went up" seems a reasonable response to the excitement of seeing how impressive LLM coding agents are at some tasks. But it'd be nice to pare it back after seeing evidence that the productivity hasn't really improved.

EDIT: my experience has been that LLM coding agents, although better than you'd think, aren't as good as you'd hope. "You don't have to put thought into it any more" doesn't match my experience. But, if you've achieved the ability to productively craft great software without thinking & without being involved in the process, I'd be curious to learn how.

I assume this is astroturfing.

Related: https://elliotmilco.substack.com/p/who-is-accountable-when-n...