News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by AndrewKemendo on Thursday May 29, 2025 @09:42PM (#44132018)
Not in 10 seconds
Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by Zamaamiro on Thursday May 29, 2025 @11:46PM (#44132625)
You probably didn’t write up a detailed prompt with perfect specifications in 10 seconds, either.

In my experience, it doesn’t matter how good or detailed the prompt is—after enough lines of code, the LLM starts making design decisions for you.

This is why I don’t accept LLM completions for anything that isn’t short enough to quickly verify that it is implemented exactly as I would have myself. Usually, that’s boilerplate code.

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by abalashov on Friday May 30, 2025 @01:19AM (#44133134)
> This is why I don’t accept LLM completions for anything that isn’t short enough to quickly verify that it is implemented exactly as I would have myself. Usually, that’s boilerplate code.

^ This. This is where I've landed as far as the extent of LLM coding assistants for me.

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by dingnuts on Thursday May 29, 2025 @10:38PM (#44132300)
I've seen very long prompts that are as long as a school essay and those didn't take ten seconds either
Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by darkwater on Friday May 30, 2025 @03:21AM (#44133796)
To some extent those fail in the same category of cheaters that put way more effort into cheating an exam than doing it properly. Or people paying 10/15 bucks a month to access a private Usenet server to download pirate content.