Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at by jsjshxnsbs on Thursday October 09, 2025 @04:18AM (#45524956)

I'll take the L when llms can actually do my job to the level I expect. Llms can do some of my work but they are tiring they make mistakes and they absolutely get confused by a sufficiently complex and large codebase.

Quite frankly, not being able to discuss the pros and the cons of a technology with other engineers absolutely hinders innovation. A lot of discoveries come out of mistakes.

Stop being so small minded.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at by laterium on Thursday October 09, 2025 @02:19PM (#45531215)

Why is the bar for it to do your job or completely replace you? It's a tool. If it makes you 5% better at your job, then great. There's a recent study showing it has 15-20% productivity benefits: not completely useless, not 10x. I hope we can have nuance in the conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at by hansmayer on Friday October 10, 2025 @08:07AM (#45538000)

...and then there was also a recent MIT study showing it was making everyone less productive. The bar is there because this is how all the AI grifters have been selling this technology - no less than end of work itself. Why should we not hold them accountable for over-promising and under-delivering? Or is that reserved just for the serfs?

[ Parent | on HN ]