Human coders are still better than LLMs

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by lores on Friday May 30, 2025 @07:35AM (#44135142)

Recognised newspapers will curate by hiring smart, knowledgeable reporters and funding them to get reliable information. Recognised books will be written by a reliably informed author, and reviewed by other reliably informed people. There are no recognised LLMs, and their method of working precludes reliability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by mystified5016 on Friday May 30, 2025 @01:40PM (#44138387)

Not anymore, not for a long time. There are very few truly reliable and trustworthy sources these days. More and more "recognized" publications are using LLMs. If a "recognized" authority gives you LLM slop, that doesn't make it any more trustworthy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by lazyasciiart on Friday May 30, 2025 @10:26PM (#44141461)

Malcolm Gladwell, Jonah Lehrer, Daniel Kahneman, Matthew Walker, Stephen Glass? The New York Times, featuring Judith Miller on the existence of WMD, or their award winning podcast "Caliphate"? (Award returned when it became known the whole thing was made up, in case you haven't heard of that one).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by lores on Saturday May 31, 2025 @02:18PM (#44146014)

As opposed to a LLM trained on all the Sh1tL0rd69 of the web?

[ Parent | on HN ]