News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by layer8 on Sunday August 25, 2024 @05:10PM (#41351471)
This increases the time you spend proofing other’s work (tedious) versus time you spend developing a solution in code (fun). Also, if the LLM output is correct 95% of the time, one tends to get more sloppy with the checking, as it will feel unnecessary most of the time.
Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by szundi on Sunday August 25, 2024 @05:35PM (#41351676)
Just what I was thinking about lately, what if LLMs are not 95% precise, but 99,95%. After like 50-100 checks you find nothing, and you just dump the whole project to be implemented - and there come the bugs.

However ... your colleagues just do the same.

We'll see how this unfolds. As for now the industry seems to be a bit stuck at this level. Big models too expensive to train for marginal gains, smaller are getting better but doesn't help this. Until some one new idea comes in how LLMs should work, we won't see the 99.95% anyway.

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by layer8 on Sunday August 25, 2024 @06:20PM (#41352005)
Yeah, I’m more worried about the middle ground that would make software quality (even) worse than it is today.
Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by LoganDark on Sunday August 25, 2024 @09:58PM (#41353323)
> This increases the time you spend proofing other’s work (tedious) versus time you spend developing a solution in code (fun).

I find that I don't use it as much for generating code as I do for automating tedious operations. For example, moving a bunch of repeating-yourself into a function, then converting the repeating blocks into function calls. The LLM's really good at doing that quickly without requiring me to perform dozens of copy-paste operations, or a bunch of multi-cursor-fu.

Also, I don't use it to generate large blocks of code or complicated logic.