8 ms·
“Better” is always task-dependent. LLMs are already far better than me (and most devs I’d imagine) at rote things like getting CSS syntax right for a desired ef
by wanderingstan 1y ago
“Better” is always task-dependent. LLMs are already far better than me (and most devs I’d imagine) at rote things like getting CSS syntax right for a desired effect, or remembering the right way to invoke a popular library (e.g. fetch)
These little side quests used to eat a lot of my time and I’m happy to have a tool that can do these almost instantly.
- gherkinnn 1y agoI have found it to be good at things I am not very strong at (SQL) but terrible at the things I know well (CSS). Telling, isn't it?
- ch4s3 1y agoI kind of agree. It feels like they're generally a superior form of copying and pasting fro stack overflow where the machine has automated the searching, copying, pasting, and fiddling with variable names. It be just as useful or dangerous as Google -> Copy -> Paste ever was, but faster.
- mywittyname 1y agoIronically, I find it strong at things I don't know very well (CSS), but terrible at things I know well (SQL). This is probably really just a way of saying, it's better at simple tasks rather than complex ones. I can eventually get Copilot to write SQL that's complex and accurate, but I don't find it faster or more effective than writing it myself.
- ehansdais 1y agoActually, you've reinforced their point. It's only bad at things the user is actually good at because the user actually knows enough in that domain to find the flaws and issues. It appears to be good in domains the user is bad at because the user doesn't know any better. In reality, the LLM is just bad at all domains; it's simply whether a user has the skill to discern it. Of course, I don't believe it's as black and white as that but I just wanted to point it out.
- tcoff91 1y agoIt’s like the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect but for LLMs instead of journalism.
- gherkinnn 1y agoYes, that is precisely what I meant. It just occurred to me and I will see how that idea holds up.
- mywittyname 1y agoYeah, my goal was to reinforce their point in a humorous way.
- sanderjd 1y agoFunny, I find it to be good at things I'm not very strong at (CSS) but terrible at the things I know well (SQL). :) Actually I think it's perfectly adequate at SQL too.
- zdragnar 1y agoI think that's great if it's for something outside of your primary language. I've used it to good effect in that way myself. However, denying yourself the reflexive memory of having learned those things is a quick way to become wholly dependent upon the tool. You could easily end up with compromised solutions because the tool recommends something you don't understand well enough to know there's a better way to do something.
- dpkirchner 1y agoYou're right, however I think we've already gone through this before. Most of us (probably) couldn't tell you exactly how an optimizing compiler picks optimizations or exactly how JavaScript maps to processor instructions, etc -- we hopefully understand enough at one level of abstraction to do our jobs. Maybe LLM driving will be another level of abstraction, when it gets better at (say) architecting projects.
- skydhash 1y ago> Most of us (probably) couldn't tell you exactly how an optimizing compiler picks optimizations or exactly how JavaScript maps to processor instructions, That's because other people are making those working well. It's like how you don't care about how the bread is being made because you trust your baker (or the regulations). It's a chain of trust that is easily broken when LLMs are brought in.
- danielbln 1y agoDepends, if regulations are the cage that a baker has to work in to produce a product of agreed upon quality, then tests and types and LSPs etc. can be that cage for an LLM.
- skydhash 1y agoRegulations are not a cage. They don't constrains you for not doing stuff. They're a threshold for when behavior have destructive consequences for yourself. So you're very much incentivized for not doing them. So tests may be the inspections, but what is the punitive action? Canceling the subscription?
- kccqzy 1y ago> and most devs I’d imagine What an awful imagination. Yes there are people who don't like CSS but are forced to use it by their job so they don't learn it properly, and that's why they think CSS is rote memorization. But overall I agree with you that if a company is too cheap to hire a person who is actually skilled at CSS, it is still better to hoist that CSS job onto LLMs than an unwilling human. Because that unwilling human is not going to learn CSS well and won't enjoy writing CSS. On the other hand, if the company is willing to hire someone who's actually good, LLMs can't compare. It's basically the old argument of LLMs only being able to replace less good developers. In this case, you admitted that you are not good at CSS and LLMs are better than you at CSS. It's not task-dependent it's skill-dependent.
- marcosdumay 1y agoHum... I imagine LLMs are better than every developer on getting CSS keywords right like the GP pointed. And I expect every LLM to be slightly worse than most classical autocompletes.
- lelandfe 1y agoI'm one of those weirdos who really likes handwriting CSS. I frequently find ChatGPT getting my requests wrong.
- jjgreen 1y ago... even better with a good fountain pen ...
- skydhash 1y agoGetting CSS keywords right is not the actual point of writing CSS. And you can have a linter that helps you in that regards. The endgame of writing CSS is to style an HTML page according to the specifications of a design. Which can be as detailed as a figma file or as flimsy as a drawing on a whiteboard.
- michaelsalim 1y ago
- jaccola 1y agoI've found LLMs particularly bad for anything beyond basic styling since the effects can be quite hard to describe and/or don't have a universal description. Also, there are often times multiple ways to achieve a certain style and they all work fine until you want a particular tweak, in which case only one will work and the LLM usually gets stuck in one of the ones that does not work.
- danielbln 1y agoMulti modal LLMs to the rescue. Throw a screenshot or mockup in there and tell the LLM "there, like this". Gemini can do the same with videos.
- karn97 1y agoStill terrible result. Multi modal = actually understands the image
- presentation 1y agoAlso tends to write CSS where if you actually have opinions about what good CSS is, is clearly an abomination. But most engineers don’t really care about that.
- sanderjd 1y agoYeah, this is what I really like about AI tools though. They're way better than me at annoying minutia like getting CSS syntax right. I used to dread that kind of thing!
- codr7 1y agoAnd you will keep dreading it for as long as you use them, since you learn nothing from solutions served on a silver plate.
- sanderjd 1y agoThe point is that I don't dread it anymore, because now there are tools that make it a lot easier the one or two times a year I have some reason to use it.
- codr7 1y agoJust wait until they're not there anymore, that's when you realize what you sacrificed.
- sanderjd 1y agoDoes this apply to other services I use? Should I avoid using Google because when it's not there anymore I'll realize what I've sacrificed?
- codr7 1y agoNot the same thing. Using Google to find an answer is convenient, and I'm sure you would miss it. But telling a machine to think for you outsources everything, once it's gone you have nothing left.