3 ms·
Simplicity is hard. And difficulty is what almost everyone using LLMs is trying to avoid. More code breed complexity. I read somewhere that 1/6 of the time sho
by skydhash 2y ago
Simplicity is hard. And difficulty is what almost everyone using LLMs is trying to avoid. More code breed complexity.
I read somewhere that 1/6 of the time should be allocated to refactoring (every 6th cycle). I wonder how that should be done with LLMs.
- valenterry 2y agoExactly that. LLMs generate a lot of simple and dumb code fast. Then you need to refactor it and you can't because LLMs are still very bad at that. They can only refactor locally with a very limited scope, not globally. Good luck to anyone having to maintain legacy LLM-generated codebases in the future, I won't.
- dartos 2y agoI’ve noticed LLMs quickly turn to pulling in dependencies and making complicated code
- skydhash 2y agoI'm sure they do great for scripts and other stuff. But the few times I tried, they always go for the most complicated solutions. I prefer my scripts to grow organically. Why automate something if I don't even know how it's done in the first place? (Unless someone else is maintaining the solution)