Writing code is itself a process of scientific exploration; you think about what will happen, and then you test it, from different angles, to confirm or falsify your assumptions.

What you confuse here is doing something that can benefit from applying logical thinking with doing science. For exanple, mathematical arithmetic is part of math and math is science. But summing numbers is not necessarily doing science. And if you roll, say, octal dice to see if the result happens to match an addition task, it is certainly not doing science, and no, the dice still can’t think logically and certainly don’t do math even if the result sometimes happens to be correct.

For the dynamic vs static typing debate, see the article by Dan Luu:

https://danluu.com/empirical-pl/

But this is not the central point of the above blog post. The central point of it is that, by the very nature of LKMs to produce statistically plausible output, self-experimenting with them subjects one to very strong psychological biases because of the Barnum effect and therefore it is, first, not even possible to assess their usefulness for programming by self-exoerimentation(!) , and second, it is even harmful because these effects lead to self-reinforcing and harmful beliefs.

And the quibbling about what “thinking” means is just showing that the arguments pro-AI has degraded into a debate about belief - the argument has become “but it seems to be thinking to me” even if it is technically not possible and also not in reality observed that LLMs apply logical rules, cannot derive logical facts, can not explain output by reasoning , are not aware about what they ‘know’ and don’t ‘know’, or can not optimize decisions to multiple complex and sometimes contradictory objectives (which is absolutely critical to sny sane software architecture).

What would be needed here are objective controlled experiments whether developers equipped with LLMs can produce working and maintainable code any faster than ones not using them.

And the very likely result is that the code which they produce using LLMs is never better than the code they write themselves.

Are you saying that it is not possible to use scientific methods to systematically and objectively compare programming tools and methods?

Of course it is possible, in the same way as it can be inbestigated whuch methods are most effective in teaching reading, or whether brushing teeth is good to prevent caries.

And the latter has been done for comparing for example statically vs dynamically typed languages. Only that the result there is so far that there is no conclusive advantage.

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can’t think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.