3 ms·
> But when it doesn't, it's so clueless and lost that it's a complete waste of time to employ LLM in the first place -- you are much better off debugging the co
by onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
> But when it doesn't, it's so clueless and lost that it's a complete waste of time to employ LLM in the first place -- you are much better off debugging the code yourself using old fashioned method.
So why not automatically try it, see if it fixes automatically, and if not then actually debug it yourself?
- colonial 1y agoTokens cost money, either directly (APIs) or indirectly (wall power for your GPU). I would prefer not to spend my hard-earned dollars on slop advice.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y agoIt would cost less than $0.05, and it's right way more times than 1 in 1000, which would pay for itself. But everyone's entitled to their own choices.
- colonial 1y ago> RustAssistant is able to achieve an impressive peak accuracy of roughly 74% on real-world compilation errors in popular open-source Rust repositories. 5 cents, for every compilation error, for a 3/4 chance of success (which is likely disproportionately weighted towards errors I could trivially fix myself.) That easily works out to multiple wasted dollars an hour even if it only applies to manual compiler invocations, not accounting for any time wasted evaluating bogus solutions.