4 ms·
This is not a worthwhile trade. The person sending the PR should not send LLM code that they can't vouch for, under the expectation that reviewers will find any
by jprete 3y ago
This is not a worthwhile trade. The person sending the PR should not send LLM code that they can't vouch for, under the expectation that reviewers will find any vulnerabilities. That's just dumping the work onto the reviewers.
- simonw 3y agoIt's a worthwhile trade. I've been able to produce a substantial amount of reliable, working code with the assistance of LLMs over the past year - code I would have not been able to produce otherwise simply due to lack of time. Why review code at all if you think your coworkers are infallible?
- dartos 3y agoI’m fine with LLM code as long as someone actually understands what it’s doing.
- bee_rider 3y agoI think you are both saying that it is OK to use LLMs, but you have to check the output. It looks like there’s been a communication hiccup or something; I think you are saying that the LLM user should treat LLM code as if it is written by an unreliable team-mate who might copy-paste from the internet, and check it. Jprete seems to be talking about just receiving a PR from a person who didn’t do that checking and just directly is using the LLM code. I agree with you, but I think it is worth noting that > This is not a worthwhile trade > It's a worthwhile trade The difference here is not in whether or not the trade is worthwhile; you are just talking about two different trades .
- simonw 3y agoYeah, I think you're right. I don't think it's OK for a coworker to contribute a PR generated by an LLM without having already reviewed it and being ready to declare that they are confident in its quality.