5 ms·

It's not. What you're seeing now is people who once thought and proclaimed these tools as useless now have to start to walk back their claims with stuff like t

It's not. What you're seeing now is people who once thought and proclaimed these tools as useless now have to start to walk back their claims with stuff like this. It does amaze me that the people who don't use these tools seem to have the most to say about them.

acedTrex 1y ago
Author here: For what it's worth I do actually use the tools albeit incredibly intentionally and sparingly. I see quite a few workflows and tasks that they can be a value add on, mostly outside of the hotpath of actual code generation but still quite enticing. So much so in fact I'm working on my own local agentic tool with some self hosted ollama models. I like to think that i am at least somewhat in the know on the capabilities and failure points of the latest LLM tooling. That however doesn't change my thoughts on trying to ascertain if code submitted to me deserves a full indepth review or if I can maybe cut a few corners here and there.
- mexicocitinluez 1y ago
  > That however doesn't change my thoughts on trying to ascertain if code submitted to me deserves a full indepth review or if I can maybe cut a few corners here and there. How would you even know? Seriously, if I use Chatgpt to generate a one-off function for a feature I'm working on that searches all classes for one that inherits a specific interface and attribute, are you saying you'd be able to spot the difference? And what does it even matter it works? What if I use Bolt to generate a quick screen for a PoC? Or use Claude to create a print-preview with CSS of a 30 page Medicare form? Or converting a component's styles MUI to tailwind? What if all these things are correct? This whole OS repos will ban LLM-generated code is a bit absurd. > or what it's worth I do actually use the tools albeit incredibly intentionally and sparingly. How sparingly? Enough to see how it's constantly improving?
  - acedTrex 1y ago
    > How would you even know? Seriously, if I use Chatgpt to generate a one-off function for a feature I'm working on that searches all classes for one that inherits a specific interface and attribute, are you saying you'd be able to spot the difference? I don't know, thats the problem. As a result, because I can't know I have to now do full in depth reviews no matter what. Which is the "judging" I tongue in cheek talk about in the blog. > How sparingly? Enough to see how it's constantly improving? Nearly daily, to be honest I have not noticed too much improvement year over year in regards to how they fail. They still break in the exact same dumb ways now as they did before. Sure they might generate correct syntactic code reliably now and it might even work. But they still consistently fail to grok the underlying reasoning for things existing. But I am writing my own versions of these agentic systems to use for some rote menial stuff.
    - mexicocitinluez 1y ago
      So you werent doing in depth reviews before? Are these people you know? And now you just don't trust them because they include a tool on their workflow?
globnomulous 1y ago
> It does amaze me that the people who don't use these tools seem to have the most to say about them. You're kidding, right? Most people who don't use the tools and write about it are responding to the ongoing hype train -- a specific article, a specific claim, or an idea that seems to be gaining acceptance or to have gone unquestioned among LLM boosters. I recently watched a talk by Andrei Karpathy. So much in it begged for a response. Google Glass was "all the rage" in 2013? Please. "Reading text is laborious and not fun. Looking at images is fun." You can't be serious. Someone recently shared on HN a blog post explaining why the author doesn't use LLMs. The justification for the post? "People keep asking me."
- mexicocitinluez 1y ago
  Being asked if I'm kidding by the person comparing Google glasses to machine learning algorithms is pretty funny ngl. And the "I don't use these tools and never will" sentiment is rampant in the tech community right now. So yes, I am serious. Youre not talking about the blog post that completely ignored agentless uses are you? The one that came to the conclusion LLMs arent useful despite only using a subset of its features?
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > And the "I don't use these tools and never will" sentiment is rampant in the tech community right now So is the "These tools are game changers and are going to make all work obsolete soon" sentiment Don't start pretending that AI boosters aren't everywhere in tech right now I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code. They are executives, managers, product owners, team leads, etc. Former Engineers maybe but very often not actively writing software daily
    - globnomulous 1y ago
      > I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code. Plenty of current, working engineers who frequent and comment on Hacker News say they use LLMs and find them useful/'game changers,' I think. Regardless, I think I agree overall: the key distinction I see is between people who like to read and write programs and people who just want to make some specific product. The former group generally treat LLMs as an unwelcome intrusion into the work they love and value. The latter generally welcome LLMs because the people selling them promise, in essence, that with LLMs you can skip the engineering and just make the product. I'm part of the former group. I love reading code, thinking about it, and working with it. Meeting-based programming (my term for LLM-assisted programming) sounds like hell on earth to me. I'd rather blow my brains out than continue to work as a software engineer in a world where the LLM-booster dream comes true.

acedTrex 1y ago

Author here: For what it's worth I do actually use the tools albeit incredibly intentionally and sparingly. I see quite a few workflows and tasks that they can be a value add on, mostly outside of the hotpath of actual code generation but still quite enticing. So much so in fact I'm working on my own local agentic tool with some self hosted ollama models. I like to think that i am at least somewhat in the know on the capabilities and failure points of the latest LLM tooling. That however doesn't change my thoughts on trying to ascertain if code submitted to me deserves a full indepth review or if I can maybe cut a few corners here and there.

mexicocitinluez 1y ago
> That however doesn't change my thoughts on trying to ascertain if code submitted to me deserves a full indepth review or if I can maybe cut a few corners here and there. How would you even know? Seriously, if I use Chatgpt to generate a one-off function for a feature I'm working on that searches all classes for one that inherits a specific interface and attribute, are you saying you'd be able to spot the difference? And what does it even matter it works? What if I use Bolt to generate a quick screen for a PoC? Or use Claude to create a print-preview with CSS of a 30 page Medicare form? Or converting a component's styles MUI to tailwind? What if all these things are correct? This whole OS repos will ban LLM-generated code is a bit absurd. > or what it's worth I do actually use the tools albeit incredibly intentionally and sparingly. How sparingly? Enough to see how it's constantly improving?
- acedTrex 1y ago
  > How would you even know? Seriously, if I use Chatgpt to generate a one-off function for a feature I'm working on that searches all classes for one that inherits a specific interface and attribute, are you saying you'd be able to spot the difference? I don't know, thats the problem. As a result, because I can't know I have to now do full in depth reviews no matter what. Which is the "judging" I tongue in cheek talk about in the blog. > How sparingly? Enough to see how it's constantly improving? Nearly daily, to be honest I have not noticed too much improvement year over year in regards to how they fail. They still break in the exact same dumb ways now as they did before. Sure they might generate correct syntactic code reliably now and it might even work. But they still consistently fail to grok the underlying reasoning for things existing. But I am writing my own versions of these agentic systems to use for some rote menial stuff.
  - mexicocitinluez 1y ago
    So you werent doing in depth reviews before? Are these people you know? And now you just don't trust them because they include a tool on their workflow?

globnomulous 1y ago

> It does amaze me that the people who don't use these tools seem to have the most to say about them. You're kidding, right? Most people who don't use the tools and write about it are responding to the ongoing hype train -- a specific article, a specific claim, or an idea that seems to be gaining acceptance or to have gone unquestioned among LLM boosters. I recently watched a talk by Andrei Karpathy. So much in it begged for a response. Google Glass was "all the rage" in 2013? Please. "Reading text is laborious and not fun. Looking at images is fun." You can't be serious. Someone recently shared on HN a blog post explaining why the author doesn't use LLMs. The justification for the post? "People keep asking me."

mexicocitinluez 1y ago
Being asked if I'm kidding by the person comparing Google glasses to machine learning algorithms is pretty funny ngl. And the "I don't use these tools and never will" sentiment is rampant in the tech community right now. So yes, I am serious. Youre not talking about the blog post that completely ignored agentless uses are you? The one that came to the conclusion LLMs arent useful despite only using a subset of its features?
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > And the "I don't use these tools and never will" sentiment is rampant in the tech community right now So is the "These tools are game changers and are going to make all work obsolete soon" sentiment Don't start pretending that AI boosters aren't everywhere in tech right now I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code. They are executives, managers, product owners, team leads, etc. Former Engineers maybe but very often not actively writing software daily
  - globnomulous 1y ago
    > I think the major difference I'm noticing is that many of the Boosters are not people who write any code. Plenty of current, working engineers who frequent and comment on Hacker News say they use LLMs and find them useful/'game changers,' I think. Regardless, I think I agree overall: the key distinction I see is between people who like to read and write programs and people who just want to make some specific product. The former group generally treat LLMs as an unwelcome intrusion into the work they love and value. The latter generally welcome LLMs because the people selling them promise, in essence, that with LLMs you can skip the engineering and just make the product. I'm part of the former group. I love reading code, thinking about it, and working with it. Meeting-based programming (my term for LLM-assisted programming) sounds like hell on earth to me. I'd rather blow my brains out than continue to work as a software engineer in a world where the LLM-booster dream comes true.