4 ms·

Well, "frontend development" means a million different things, but LLMs are very good at flexbox and grid (and I'm not). With backend I find they're good at th

by tasuki 2y ago

Well, "frontend development" means a million different things, but LLMs are very good at flexbox and grid (and I'm not). With backend I find they're good at the really high level (give me the options for architecture and their pros and cons) and doing something small and precise (gimme a function `List (Maybe a) -> List a`). The stuff in-between I have to handle myself.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
> Well, "frontend development" means a million different things, but LLMs are very good at flexbox and grid (and I'm not). This is my #1 complaint about how people talk about LLM productivity If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it
- tasuki 2y ago
  LLMs are good enough to solve my problems with flexbox. I gave a LLM a small self-contained flexbox-puzzle which I couldn't solve, and it solved it. The CSS it produced did the thing I asked. > If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it Hard disagree: Even if you aren't good at writing a function like `List (Maybe a) -> List a`, you can easily say whether the LLM suggestion was good or not. If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples.
  - only-one1701 2y ago
    I think the person above was alluding to the idea that the determination of whether or not LLMs are good at frontend development is the idea that frontend development is flexbox. That's like me saying "LLMs will replace all developers who work with databases because Claude was able to spit out a really complex SQL query."
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples This doesn't follow at all, maybe you just really suck. It is entirely possible that a game AI that you find impossible to beat is trivial to beat for almost anyone with more experience than you have Yes, there are chess engines that can beat the best chess players However, most people couldn't possibly tell the difference between playing against the best chess engine in the world or a novice difficulty chess AI, because most people suck at chess "It is better than I am" is a terrible metric to use to judge when you suck at that thing

by tasuki 2y ago

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> Well, "frontend development" means a million different things, but LLMs are very good at flexbox and grid (and I'm not). This is my #1 complaint about how people talk about LLM productivity If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it

tasuki 2y ago
LLMs are good enough to solve my problems with flexbox. I gave a LLM a small self-contained flexbox-puzzle which I couldn't solve, and it solved it. The CSS it produced did the thing I asked. > If you aren't good at something you are not qualified to say that LLMs are good at it Hard disagree: Even if you aren't good at writing a function like `List (Maybe a) -> List a`, you can easily say whether the LLM suggestion was good or not. If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples.
- only-one1701 2y ago
  I think the person above was alluding to the idea that the determination of whether or not LLMs are good at frontend development is the idea that frontend development is flexbox. That's like me saying "LLMs will replace all developers who work with databases because Claude was able to spit out a really complex SQL query."
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > If you aren't good at playing the game of go and a program beats you giving you nine handicap stones, probably the program is good at it. Many similar examples This doesn't follow at all, maybe you just really suck. It is entirely possible that a game AI that you find impossible to beat is trivial to beat for almost anyone with more experience than you have Yes, there are chess engines that can beat the best chess players However, most people couldn't possibly tell the difference between playing against the best chess engine in the world or a novice difficulty chess AI, because most people suck at chess "It is better than I am" is a terrible metric to use to judge when you suck at that thing