4 ms·

Definitely squeezed. They say AI, but AI isn't eliminating programming. I've wrote a few applications with AI assistance. It probably would've been faster if I

Definitely squeezed. They say AI, but AI isn't eliminating programming. I've wrote a few applications with AI assistance. It probably would've been faster if I wrote it myself. The problem is that it doesn't have context and wildly assumes what your intentions are and cheats outcomes. It will replace juniors for that one liner, it won't replace a senior developer who knows how to write code.

NERD_ALERT 2y ago
I felt this way with Github Copilot but I started using Cursor this week and it genuinely feels like a competent pair programmer.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 2y ago
  What work are you doing the last few days? My experience is for a very narrow range of tasks, like getting the basics of a common but new to me API working, they are moderately useful. But the overwhelming majority of the time they are useless.
- jdcasale 2y ago
  I recently tried Cursor for about a week and I was disappointed. It was useful for generating code that someone else has definitely written before (boilerplate etc), but any time I tried to do something nontrivial, it failed no matter how much poking, prodding, and thoughtful prompting I tried. Even when I tried to ask it for stuff like refactoring a relatively simple rust file to be more idiomatic or organized, it consistently generated code that did not compile and was unable to fix the compile errors on 5 or 6 repromptings. For what it's worth, a lot of SWE work technically trivial -- it makes this much quicker so there's obviously some value there, but if we're comparing it to a pair programmer, I would definitely fire a dev who had this sort of extremely limited complexity ceiling. It really feels to me (just vibes, obviously not scientific) like it is good at interpolating between things in its training set, but is not really able to do anything more than that. Presumably this will get better over time.
  - dughnut 2y ago
    If you asked a junior developer to refactor a rust program to be more idiomatic, how long would you expect that to take? Would you expect the work to compile on the first try? I love Cline and Copilot. If you carefully specify your task, provide context for uncommon APIs, and keep the scope limited, then the results are often very good. It’s code completion for whole classes and methods or whole utility scripts for common use cases. Refactoring to taste may be under specified.
    - Retric 2y ago
      What matters here is the communication overhead not how long between responses. If I’m indefinitely spending more time handholding a jr dev than they save me eventually I just fire em, same with code gen.
      - djmips 2y ago
        A big difference is that the jr. dev is learning compared to the AI who is stuck at whatever competence was baked in from the factory. You might be more patient with the jr if you saw positive signs that the handholding was paying off.
        Retric 2y ago
        That was my point, though I may not have been clear. Most people do get better over time, but for those who don’t (or LLM’s) it’s just a question of if their current skills are a net benefit. I do expect future AI to improve. My expectation is it’s going to be a long slow slog just like with self driving cars etc, but novel approaches regularly turn extremely difficult problems into seemingly trivial exercises.
        dughnut 2y ago
        I would be more patient with an AI that only costs me a fraction of a cent an hour.
        2y ago
- meander_water 2y ago
  This has been my experience as well. Cursor Chat and autocomplete are near useless, and generate all sorts of errors, which on the whole cost more time. However, using composer, passing in the related files explicitly in the context, and prompting small changes incrementally has been a game changer for me. It also helps if you describe the intended behaviour in excruciating detail, including how you want all the edge cases/errors handled.
sumedh 2y ago
> The problem is that it doesn't have context You are supposed to give it context, if you dont provide it context how will it know what its supposed to do?
- Sparkyte 2y ago
  I really wish that was the case. You can give it only so much context before it starts to go down a path where the context doesn't even make sense to it, and yet if you explained it to a colleague they would instantly understand. Context has layers and really 1st or 2nd layers ever get reached by AI but it can't dive further because it is too focused on the final output rather than the continuation of the output. For example you write code and then tell it what the final expect output is, it some how always divorces itself from rudimentary implementations and poops out something that cut a lot holes out or shortcuts all of your work. Removes modularity in favor of that immediate outcome. AI is just not good enough to understand the complex relationship of maintainable code and deliverable code. So it poops out what is easily made to meet the deliverable.

NERD_ALERT 2y ago

I felt this way with Github Copilot but I started using Cursor this week and it genuinely feels like a competent pair programmer.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Retric 2y ago
What work are you doing the last few days? My experience is for a very narrow range of tasks, like getting the basics of a common but new to me API working, they are moderately useful. But the overwhelming majority of the time they are useless.
jdcasale 2y ago
I recently tried Cursor for about a week and I was disappointed. It was useful for generating code that someone else has definitely written before (boilerplate etc), but any time I tried to do something nontrivial, it failed no matter how much poking, prodding, and thoughtful prompting I tried. Even when I tried to ask it for stuff like refactoring a relatively simple rust file to be more idiomatic or organized, it consistently generated code that did not compile and was unable to fix the compile errors on 5 or 6 repromptings. For what it's worth, a lot of SWE work technically trivial -- it makes this much quicker so there's obviously some value there, but if we're comparing it to a pair programmer, I would definitely fire a dev who had this sort of extremely limited complexity ceiling. It really feels to me (just vibes, obviously not scientific) like it is good at interpolating between things in its training set, but is not really able to do anything more than that. Presumably this will get better over time.
- dughnut 2y ago
  If you asked a junior developer to refactor a rust program to be more idiomatic, how long would you expect that to take? Would you expect the work to compile on the first try? I love Cline and Copilot. If you carefully specify your task, provide context for uncommon APIs, and keep the scope limited, then the results are often very good. It’s code completion for whole classes and methods or whole utility scripts for common use cases. Refactoring to taste may be under specified.
  - Retric 2y ago
    What matters here is the communication overhead not how long between responses. If I’m indefinitely spending more time handholding a jr dev than they save me eventually I just fire em, same with code gen.
    - djmips 2y ago
      A big difference is that the jr. dev is learning compared to the AI who is stuck at whatever competence was baked in from the factory. You might be more patient with the jr if you saw positive signs that the handholding was paying off.
      - Retric 2y ago
        That was my point, though I may not have been clear. Most people do get better over time, but for those who don’t (or LLM’s) it’s just a question of if their current skills are a net benefit. I do expect future AI to improve. My expectation is it’s going to be a long slow slog just like with self driving cars etc, but novel approaches regularly turn extremely difficult problems into seemingly trivial exercises.
      - dughnut 2y ago
        I would be more patient with an AI that only costs me a fraction of a cent an hour.
        2y ago
meander_water 2y ago
This has been my experience as well. Cursor Chat and autocomplete are near useless, and generate all sorts of errors, which on the whole cost more time. However, using composer, passing in the related files explicitly in the context, and prompting small changes incrementally has been a game changer for me. It also helps if you describe the intended behaviour in excruciating detail, including how you want all the edge cases/errors handled.

sumedh 2y ago

> The problem is that it doesn't have context You are supposed to give it context, if you dont provide it context how will it know what its supposed to do?

Sparkyte 2y ago
I really wish that was the case. You can give it only so much context before it starts to go down a path where the context doesn't even make sense to it, and yet if you explained it to a colleague they would instantly understand. Context has layers and really 1st or 2nd layers ever get reached by AI but it can't dive further because it is too focused on the final output rather than the continuation of the output. For example you write code and then tell it what the final expect output is, it some how always divorces itself from rudimentary implementations and poops out something that cut a lot holes out or shortcuts all of your work. Removes modularity in favor of that immediate outcome. AI is just not good enough to understand the complex relationship of maintainable code and deliverable code. So it poops out what is easily made to meet the deliverable.