5 ms·

I'm so happy now LLMs are democratising access to programming, especially open models like what Meta with Llama and Mistral is doing with Codestral are doing.

I'm so happy now LLMs are democratising access to programming, especially open models like what Meta with Llama and Mistral is doing with Codestral are doing. The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. This is so exciting to see and each day programming is becoming a solved problem so we can focus on other things.

skydhash 2y ago
Shadow libraries did more to democratize anything than LLMs. And following a book like Elixir in Action (Manning) will get you there faster than chatting with LLMs or copilot generating code for you.
smokel 2y ago
In my experience these tools amplify the quality of a programmer. I have seen good programmers dramatically increase their productivity, but I've also seen others copy-pasting for loops inside other for loops where one loop would definitely suffice. We're not quite there yet.
- croes 2y ago
  I'm curious for the long-term effect. I observe a certain laziness in myself when it comes to certain problems. It's easier to ask a LLM and debug provided code, but I ask myself if I'm losing some problem solving capabilities in the long run because of this. Similar to the loss of speed in doing mental arithmetic because of calculators on the smartphone.
- bubbleRefuge 2y ago
  Absolutely it amplifies. Complex and esoteric configuration of frameworks, for example, entails so much reading and Googling and can be very time consuming without AI. AI can help to bring custom software to the markets that could not otherwise afford to pay for it.
icedchai 2y ago
I'm skeptical. I've run into people who used LLMs to code, then can't debug it without someone else's help. It may get you 80% there though.
- whiplash451 2y ago
  It does not get you 80% there if it achieves what you described. It rather gets you 100% into trouble.
  - croes 2y ago
    Programmer view vs management view. 100% of nothing vs 80% of enough. That's the risk of AI. Not that AI outperforms humans already but that managers believe it does. That and that code writing is the main work of programmers.
  - icedchai 2y ago
    I agree with you. I've had to debug some of that junk.
- Cyphase 2y ago
  I've run into working programmers who were bad at debugging before LLMs existed.
  - icedchai 2y ago
    Absolutely. LLMs aren't going to replace good developers. The bad ones, maybe.
croes 2y ago
>The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. How do you become a great programmer if you don't really program?
- Bombthecat 2y ago
  You become a proompt engineer :)
maskil 2y ago
I would argue the opposite is true. My experience with coding with LLMs is that the only thing it's really good at is generating boilerplate that it has more-or-less seen before (essentially a library, even if is somewhat adapted), however it is incapable of the creative thinking that developers regularly need to engage in when architecting a solution for their use case.
- Kiro 2y ago
  My experience is the opposite. When I started using Copilot I thought it would only be good at standard boilerplate but I'm constantly surprised how well it understands my completely convoluted legacy architecture that barely I understand myself even though I'm the only contributor.
  - localfirst 2y ago
    I've been on both sides of the fence here. Parents problem I experienced -> it gets "stuck" and its limitation of learning loop (humans are always asking why it gets stuck and how to get unstuck), LLMs just power through without understanding what "stuck" is. For explaining existing corpus, algorithm it does a fantastic job. So likely we will see significant wage garnishing in "agency/b2b enterprise" shops.
  - maskil 2y ago
    Understanding existing code is in its wheelhouse (provided the infrastructure feeding the existing code to the prompt is working well), but I believe if you examine the totality of work a human programmer is involved in, an LLM is woefully behind in many areas (gathering proper requirements, potentially iterating/pushing back on requirements, architecting a solution on a macro level, other gaps an LLm cannot fill).
huygens6363 2y ago
This enables everyone to be great programmers like how easily available power tools enables everyone to be a great carpenter and general craftsman. You’ll get a lot of shitty stuff and the profession will get hollowed out losing attraction of the smart people. We’ll be left with low-quality, disposable bullshit while wondering where all the programmers went.

skydhash 2y ago

Shadow libraries did more to democratize anything than LLMs. And following a book like Elixir in Action (Manning) will get you there faster than chatting with LLMs or copilot generating code for you.

smokel 2y ago

In my experience these tools amplify the quality of a programmer. I have seen good programmers dramatically increase their productivity, but I've also seen others copy-pasting for loops inside other for loops where one loop would definitely suffice. We're not quite there yet.

croes 2y ago
I'm curious for the long-term effect. I observe a certain laziness in myself when it comes to certain problems. It's easier to ask a LLM and debug provided code, but I ask myself if I'm losing some problem solving capabilities in the long run because of this. Similar to the loss of speed in doing mental arithmetic because of calculators on the smartphone.
bubbleRefuge 2y ago
Absolutely it amplifies. Complex and esoteric configuration of frameworks, for example, entails so much reading and Googling and can be very time consuming without AI. AI can help to bring custom software to the markets that could not otherwise afford to pay for it.

icedchai 2y ago

I'm skeptical. I've run into people who used LLMs to code, then can't debug it without someone else's help. It may get you 80% there though.

whiplash451 2y ago
It does not get you 80% there if it achieves what you described. It rather gets you 100% into trouble.
- croes 2y ago
  Programmer view vs management view. 100% of nothing vs 80% of enough. That's the risk of AI. Not that AI outperforms humans already but that managers believe it does. That and that code writing is the main work of programmers.
- icedchai 2y ago
  I agree with you. I've had to debug some of that junk.
Cyphase 2y ago
I've run into working programmers who were bad at debugging before LLMs existed.
- icedchai 2y ago
  Absolutely. LLMs aren't going to replace good developers. The bad ones, maybe.

croes 2y ago

>The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. How do you become a great programmer if you don't really program?

Bombthecat 2y ago
You become a proompt engineer :)

maskil 2y ago

I would argue the opposite is true. My experience with coding with LLMs is that the only thing it's really good at is generating boilerplate that it has more-or-less seen before (essentially a library, even if is somewhat adapted), however it is incapable of the creative thinking that developers regularly need to engage in when architecting a solution for their use case.

Kiro 2y ago
My experience is the opposite. When I started using Copilot I thought it would only be good at standard boilerplate but I'm constantly surprised how well it understands my completely convoluted legacy architecture that barely I understand myself even though I'm the only contributor.
- localfirst 2y ago
  I've been on both sides of the fence here. Parents problem I experienced -> it gets "stuck" and its limitation of learning loop (humans are always asking why it gets stuck and how to get unstuck), LLMs just power through without understanding what "stuck" is. For explaining existing corpus, algorithm it does a fantastic job. So likely we will see significant wage garnishing in "agency/b2b enterprise" shops.
- maskil 2y ago
  Understanding existing code is in its wheelhouse (provided the infrastructure feeding the existing code to the prompt is working well), but I believe if you examine the totality of work a human programmer is involved in, an LLM is woefully behind in many areas (gathering proper requirements, potentially iterating/pushing back on requirements, architecting a solution on a macro level, other gaps an LLm cannot fill).

huygens6363 2y ago

This enables everyone to be great programmers like how easily available power tools enables everyone to be a great carpenter and general craftsman. You’ll get a lot of shitty stuff and the profession will get hollowed out losing attraction of the smart people. We’ll be left with low-quality, disposable bullshit while wondering where all the programmers went.