I don't think a lot of people are really worried that LLMs will successfully replace them, but they might still get let go because the people in charge think they can replace people with LLMs. These two scenarios don't imply the same level of confidence in LLMs at all.

What people who know nothing about creation/production think only matters in the short term, and over a long enough time frame they will be proven wrong.

I've used LLMs via agents and chat for what I do and I have zero confidence that it could be a productive part of a team without a very knowledgeable handler that knows exactly what they want and how to correct errant output... Meaning you'll still have to hire an engine programmer in order to get a game engine, then you can pretend that they'll have to use a LLM to get their work done (but given that the "you" in this scenario is completely out of the loop when it comes to production you wouldn't be able to tell that they did all their work manually, except perhaps if you notice that velocity went up, bug count went down, and there was more confidence when it came to estimations).

Thank you for actually posting an example that people can look at; I think most other responders misunderstood the post as asking for more pointless anecdotes filled with superlatives and "trust me bro" sentiments.

My bigger point was that not everyone who is skeptical about supposed productivity gains and their veracity is in competition with you. I think any inference you made beyond that is a mistake on your part.

(I did do web development and distributed systems for quite some time, though, and I suspect while LLMs are probably good at tutorial-level stuff for those areas it falls apart quite fast once you leave the kiddy pool.)

P.S.:

I think it's very ironic that you say that you should be careful to not speak in general terms about things that might depend much more on context, when you clearly somehow were under the belief that all developers must see the same kind of (perceived) productivity gains you have.

I think the bigger part of those studies was actually that they were a clear sign that whatever productivity coefficient people were imagining back then was clearly a figment of their imagination, so it's useful to take that lesson with you forward. If people are saying they're 2 times productive with LLMs, it's still likely the case that a large part of that is hyperbole, whatever model they're working with.

It's the psychology of it that's important, not the tool itself; people are very bad at understanding where they're spending their time and cannot accurately assess the rate at which they work because of it.

No, I wouldn't say it's super complex. I make custom 3D engines. It's just that you and I were probably never in any real competition anyway, because it's not super common to do what I do.

I will add that LLMs are very mediocre, bordering on bad, at any challenging or interesting 3D engine stuff. They're pretty decent at answering questions about surface API stuff (though, inexplicably, they're really shit at OpenGL which is odd because it has way more code out there written in it than any other API) and a bit about the APIs' structure, though.