4 ms·
>most LLMs are great for spitting out some code that fulfills 90% of what you asked for. That's sometimes all you need. But we all know that the last 10% usuall
by simion314 2y ago
>most LLMs are great for spitting out some code that fulfills 90% of what you asked for. That's sometimes all you need. But we all know that the last 10% usually take the same amount of effort as the first 90%.
The issue is if you have an LLm write for you 10k lines of code, where 100 lines are bugged. Now you need to debug the code you did not write and find the bugged code, you will waste similar amount of time. The issue is if you do not catch the bugs in time, you think you gain some hours but you will get upset customers because things went wrong because the code is weird.
From my experience you need to work withan LLM and have the code done function by function, with your input and you checking it and calling bullshit when it does stupid things.
- xmprt 2y agoIn my experience using LLMs, the 90% is less about buggy code and more about just ignoring 10% of the features that you require. So it will write code that's mostly correct in 100-1000 lines of code (not buggy) but then no matter how hard you try, it won't get the remaining 10% right and in the process, it will mess up parts of the 90% that was already working or end up writing another 1000 lines of undecipherable code to get 97% there but still never 100% unless you're building something that's not that unique.
- andix 2y agoExactly my experience. It's always missing something. And the generated code often can't be extended to fulfil those missing aspects.