News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Human coders are still better than LLMs. Parent comment

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by jdiff on Thursday May 29, 2025 @06:50PM (#44131131)
Why would we not? If they were so effective, their effectiveness would be apparent, inarguable, and those making use of it would advertise it as a demonstration of just that. Even if there were some sort of social stigma against it, AI has enough proponents to produce copious amounts of counterarguments through evidence all on their own.

Instead, we have a tiny handful of one-off events that were laboriously tuned and tweaked and massaged over extended periods of time, and a flood of slop in the form of broken patches, bloated and misleading issues, and nonsense bug bounty attempts.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by xandrius on Thursday May 29, 2025 @07:21PM (#44131320)
I think the main reason might be that when the output is good the developer congratulates themselves, and when it's bad they make a post or comment about how bad AI is.

Then the people who congratulate the AI for helping get yelled at by the other category.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by jdiff on Thursday May 29, 2025 @08:43PM (#44131718)
As long as the AI people stay in their lane and work on their own projects, they're not getting yelled at. This is ignoring that AI has enough proponents to have enough projects of significant size. And even if they're getting shouted at from across the fence, again, AI has enough proponents who would brave getting yelled at.

We'd still have more than tortured, isolated, one-offs. We should have at least one well-known codebase maintained through the power of Silicon Valley's top silicon-based minds.

[ Parent | on HN ]