@regehr @aburka So my response could be *really* long but I'll keep it relatively brief.
My thesis (please don't read it) was about automatic codegen, leaning in the direction of what LLMs currently do. I thought it was the way to go. I'm much less convinced of that now, and was before the LLM stuff took off.
Whenever I have seen it used, codegen from specs (*) doesn't work out well. And that's with formality behind it. Codegen from informal specs crank up the ease so they have that dopamine hit, but it doesn't last. Everyone intrinsically knows this. Not everyone acknowledges it.
(*) Let's ignore the "code as spec" perspective here, where a compiler counts as an auto codegen tool.
From that perspective, I don't care for LLM autocomplete. It's far too good at disengaging you from the material. Much has been said about this already, and the studies are proving it right.
However, LLMs are an very interesting technology, from a purely technological standpoint. For that, the academic in me says they should be studied. You have to explore the edges. You can predict the broad direction of something pretty well, but the details matter. We don't know the details yet. And that's what academia is for!
And are LLMs good as spitting out a lot of code that kinda works? Yes. Yes they are. It's a reality that cannot be ignored. So that should be studied and taught.
That said, I really hope the teaching involves not just the technology. And this is where I probably diverge from others. Because continued use of the technology as it currently exists is supporting and empowering some of the worst people and systems in the world. If I were researching and teaching this stuff, I'd be very clear about what we know about them aside from their outputs. I think ignoring that aspect is a massive disservice, if not derelict of duty.
I continue to not use them and oppose their usage in most settings because of the massive problems that exist behind them. I'm still not really sure they can even be ethical, if "ethical" means "does not incur undue harm to others". What we have now does not qualify.
When I see or hear of anyone I know use our current crop of LLMs I get a little sad and lose some respect for them, but I also understand that convenience is a thing. I believe we (especially American-style "we") overvalue convenience for individuals, but that is another thread. I get that resisting this stuff is not for everyone and we all have different circumstances. And then there is the relentless pressure from bosses to use it. (Make sure you think about why that is!)
Anyway, my feelings on this are complicated even though I am vehemently against LLM usage. Most of my objection stems from factors that seem outside the technology itself but I feel, however, fundamentally define it. The utility of it (at some level, at least) cannot be denied. It should be taught and studied. But I sincerely hope it is done in a way that does not try to divorce it from these other factors and makes it clear that code is, ultimately, a liability. More of it is not what you want.
And yes, I'm disappointed some people are so excited about it.
