The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by bigstrat2003 on Thursday July 16, 2026 @06:36PM (#48941198)

I have seen no productivity uplift at all from LLMs. They are at least about neutral these days (they used to be a productivity drain), but no gains at all. By the time I get done reviewing the code to make sure it hasn't done anything crazy, I've spent the same amount of time I would've taken to write the code myself. The only people I personally know who claim productivity gains are getting those gains by completely disregarding quality, or understanding the code, and just YOLO letting the LLM do everything without checking. I'm not willing to do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by annzabelle on Thursday July 16, 2026 @10:28PM (#48942751)

I find Claude is shockingly slow. If it were genuinely instantaneous, it would be worth it, but I often find myself twiddling my thumbs while waiting for it to cook.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by fragmede on Friday July 17, 2026 @03:18AM (#48944271)

Yeah that's why you do multiple tasks and projects simultaneously.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by rwyinuse on Friday July 17, 2026 @03:49AM (#48944440)

Humans notoriously suck at context-switching. I doubt you can really do multiple projects simultaneously without compromising quality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by LtWorf on Friday July 17, 2026 @05:15AM (#48945042)

You're already vibe coding, how worse can it get?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway by Hugsbox on Friday July 17, 2026 @07:48AM (#48946173)

That sounds like a really efficient way to very quickly produce a mountain of crap.

[ Parent | on HN ]