“To be explicit, allowing LLM to write all of your code means that you are no longer developing code, nor are you learning how to develop code, nor are you going to become a better software engineer as a result.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
If you allow an LLM to write all of your code, you are no longer developing code, nor learning how to, nor going to become a better software engineer as a result.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, Why Are We Still Doing This?, paragraph 149.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-why-are-we-still-doing-this-16e34a-a1
We recorded 33 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2026-03-17. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Causal claim
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- allowing an LLM to write all of your code (antecedent, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- allowing LLM to write all of your code
- no longer developing code
- nor are you learning how to develop code
- nor are you going to become a better software engineer as a result
Our interpretation
- The empirical core is that delegating all code authorship prevents learning and improvement attributable to that activity.
- Learning means gains in independent programming knowledge, comprehension, debugging or engineering performance; completing work faster is not sufficient.
- The surrounding discussion emphasizes passive acceptance of generated code. The sentence itself does not explicitly exclude users who study or test the generated code.
- Whether someone remains a developer is partly a definition of the occupation, not a measurable learning outcome.
- This is a general causal claim, not a forecast with a dated deadline.
Counts as supported if: Studies directly examining complete delegation show no learning or engineering-skill improvement attributable to the activity, with evidence sufficiently broad to support the categorical wording.
Counts as contradicted if: Credible evidence establishes learning or improved independent engineering ability caused by an activity in which the LLM authors all the code.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Does the evidence support the cause?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The closest experiment supports a learning cost from passive delegation, but the claim is stronger: no learning and no improvement. Lower quiz scores do not demonstrate either absolute. Participants who generated code and then studied it showed stronger comprehension, although that subgroup comparison does not establish causation. The evidence therefore supports the concern without settling the categorical claim.
Limitations
- One short task using an unfamiliar Python library does not represent a software-engineering career.
- The available study measures immediate comprehension.
- The occupational label 'developing code' is partly definitional.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: arXiv; Judy Hanwen Shen and Alex Tamkin,
at the cost of learning
Why it matters here: The January research report supports the narrower concern that full delegation can impair learning. Reduced learning relative to a control does not establish zero learning or an inability to improve as an engineer.
- Where
- Abstract
- Publisher
- arXiv; Judy Hanwen Shen and Alex Tamkin
- Kind of source
- Preprint, not peer reviewed
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Anthropic,
how much information they retained
Why it matters here: Two participants who generated code and then sought explanations showed stronger comprehension, while passive delegation was associated with poorer results. The authors say these subgroup associations are not causal findings and that immediate quiz results do not settle long-term development.
- Publisher
- Anthropic
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Controlled studies verifying complete code delegation and measuring baseline, delayed independent programming performance and broader engineering skills, with passive acceptance and active study analyzed separately.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, Why Are We Still Doing This?
To be explicit, allowing LLM to write all of your code means that you are no longer developing code, nor are you learning how to develop code, nor are you going to become a better software engineer as a result.
- Where
- paragraph 149
- Published
- 2026-03-17
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-why-are-we-still-doing-this-16e34a-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment wyea-why-are-we-still-doing-this-16e34a-a1.