It's a huge mistake to jump from "all recent presidents have abused executive power in some way" (accurate and bad, and we shouldn't stand for it) to "they are all the same/their abuses are equally extreme/damaging" (incredibly ignorant and incorrect)
I think you're missing the point of the commenter. A third party library is a new dependency. Since there's new vulnerabilities almost every week in the npm ecosystem, if you can do something without a third party, it's probably better.
With LLM driven code you can generate code once, and then if anything is shitty about it you can always manually update it yourself without the need of an LLM. It's a dependency of convenience, not an app-dependency.
From the description of the recommended tool it sounded to me like something that you use to deterministically generate code from a spec, which you could then modify if you like. That would be the same kind of dependency as the LLM workflow you describe, except that the abstraction is well-defined in a way that the LLM is not. Whether it's good or not is a different question.
That would be nice if it were the case but from what I can gather from this interesting dependency graph, there's a hard dependency on its renderer and schema.
I don't know or care about that specific tool, or really what you do at all, I was just reacting to how the principle you stated conflicts with the practice you described. How you reconcile those is up to you.
GP is talking about what they [the companies in question] accept/expect as work product. That has always differed from what they look for in a job candidate. Not surprising that AI psychosis amplifies the discrepancy.
Can't speak for their usage, but I calculated my token use with Copilot, my employer paid 22$ for >2000$ in tokens. Given estimates margins, Github is paying 98-99% of the costs for us.
I imagine Claude max etc is similar. So it's not sustainable at all
reply