Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM
by nsonha on Sunday August 25, 2024 @09:05PM
(#41352990)
> We cannot really be confident that an LLM will produce correct output based on correct input.
There are 2 things at play here, one is LLM with human in the loop, in which it's just a tool for programmers to do the same thing they have been doing, and the other is LLM as black box automaton. For the former, it's not a problem that the tool is undeterministic, we are double checking the results and add our manual labour anyway. The fact that a tool can fail sometimes is an unsurprising fact of engineering.
I think the criticism in this chain of comment applies more to the latter, but even it always has values to non-tech people, just like how no-code approaches are, however shitty it looks to us software enfineers.
Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM
by elric on Monday August 26, 2024 @03:44AM
(#41354875)
I don't know. Programming with an LLM turns every line of code into legacy code that you have to maintain and debug and don't fully grok because you didn't write it yourself.
Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM
by nsonha on Monday August 26, 2024 @05:30AM
(#41355405)
If it's in your PR then you wrote it, no one should be approving code they do not understand whether that's from AI or googling. Nothing changes there.
There are 2 things at play here, one is LLM with human in the loop, in which it's just a tool for programmers to do the same thing they have been doing, and the other is LLM as black box automaton. For the former, it's not a problem that the tool is undeterministic, we are double checking the results and add our manual labour anyway. The fact that a tool can fail sometimes is an unsurprising fact of engineering.
I think the criticism in this chain of comment applies more to the latter, but even it always has values to non-tech people, just like how no-code approaches are, however shitty it looks to us software enfineers.