If this is true, then you are not saving a lot of time. Because most of the time is spent evaluating various options and ways to implement the functionality. Even when you are reviewing, you ll have to do that. (With LLMs, this is even more feasible, because now you can actually implement some of the variants, and evaluate them).
But on the other side, you are saving from typing the code. So if you are really reviewing everything, then you are not saving much time. The alternative is that you settle for some local maximum during each review, that in long term won't necessarly translate to a globlal maximum or even a global "good enough" position...
I'm saving time. It's implementing features in a few hours that would have taken me weeks to implement. I can review code much faster than I can create well reasoned, implemented and tested solutions.
This faux socratic method flavor of AI skepticism is so cringe at this point, and reeks of your own insecurity in your beliefs. We get it, you don't think AI is useful for the type of coding people claim it is. Why on earth would anyone try and convince you at this point?
This is not a binary thing. It could be useful at the same time detrimental in some manner. Look at smartphones. I am just raising the possibilities if one use LLMs indiscriminately to generate code.
Probably because it's utterly pointless to try and convince someone in 2026 that LLMs are useful for coding. Why waste time trying to talk to someone with their head in the sand?
