4 ms·
Statements like this make no sense to me. I get that your personal experience may be you can type 30x as much code per unit of time, but where is the 30x better
by nonameiguess 2y ago
Statements like this make no sense to me. I get that your personal experience may be you can type 30x as much code per unit of time, but where is the 30x better software? Where even is the 30x more software? I've never been part of any project I can think where how fast you can produce code was even a meaningful bottleneck to delivery compared to all the other impediments. Granted, I've largely worked in fairly high-security environments, but still.
- resters 2y agoFor types of code that LLMs are "good at", the results are quite good if the LLM is told pretty much how to solve the problem. Generally they can map English language text into working code modules, can write tests for the modules, etc. You still have to plan out the approach and keep track of how it's supposed to be working or else they can be quite error prone and arbitrarily remove needed code or randomly forget important details. But once those constraints are understood it can often do quite well. At this point if we get larger context windows and LLMs become able to break down problems to include fetching relevant code into context when needed, and perhaps with the addition of some oversight training about not removing functionality, the qualty will get much, much better. But already they are a massive time saver and they are good at some of the more boring aspects of writing code, leaving the engineer to do more systems thinking and problem solving.