Thats you, don't assume everybody in the IT world works in code sweatshops like that. Your above ultra confident statements are also not correct across much of industry.

That's fine. It will be 99.99% for everyone soon except those who identify as an coding artisan.

There are still people who ride horses.

you sound like a web developer

I always write my assembly by hand because nobody appreciates the craft anymore. It’s all hidden by those pesky compilers which generate extremely inadequate code that could easily be improved by some thinking on the programmer side /s

I do think a better programmer will be a better prompter just like a better compiler engineer will be a better programmer (when performance matters at least).

What is you are writing, what is the problem domain? What does need tens of thousands of lines of code written each day?

Because 100 lines of (debugged, reviewed) code per day is a good speed for seasoned software engineer. I assume that you can produce more than 100 lines of something per day as a prompt.

So, what is the problem domain that requires one to write several thousands of lines of code per day?

Did they edit their comment? I don't see anything about "per day".

My comment was to match productivity of human programmer to claimed productivity of their use of LLM.

If they write 2 (two) lines of code, the combined output of them with LLM, as I read it now, is 20K SLOC. This is yearly output of human programmer.

It is very much possible to write 100 lines of (debugged, reviewed) code per day for human. And these 100 lines of code would result, if we apply their LLM multiplication factor, in 50 (fifty) man-years of work!

Even if they write very little code, say, one line per month, after a year of work they will get result of about 6 (six) years of human programmer. SQLite is 155K SLOC, about 8 man-years.

And that what raised my question: what is the problem domain that requires so much code?

Thing is, lines of code was never a good metric in software engineering (at least it shouldn’t have been). When people talk about “~% of code” I feel certain dissonance between what they’re measuring and what they’re actually doing. I mean, you certainly want to type less for working code, sure - that’s why programmers develop high level languages. Maybe now we should consider how to code with AI and how well/terrible different approaches are doing. Just saying “99% by AI” doesn’t sound like a good way of saying things are replaced by AI. I mean a lot of things will be replaced by AI, but at least not because of/according to lines of code.