3 ms·
90% of real grunt work is "stitch an extra appendage to this unholy abomination of God" or "*points at the screen* look at this shit, figure out why is it happe
by 123yawaworht456 1y ago
90% of real grunt work is "stitch an extra appendage to this unholy abomination of God" or "*points at the screen* look at this shit, figure out why is it happening and fix it". LLMs are more or less useless for either of those things.
- zeta0134 1y agoAn LLM can certainly try to consume an extremely poorly specified bug report, in half English half the user's native language, then consume the entire codebase and guess what the devil they're actually referring to. My guess is the humans are better at this, and I mostly speak from experience on two separate support floors that tried to add AI to that flow. It fails, miserably. It's not really possible for an LLM to pick up on the hidden complexities of the app that real users and developers internalize through practice. Almost by definition, they're not documented! Users "just know" and thus there is no training data to ingest. I'd estimate though that the vast, vast majority of bugs I've been assigned originate from one of these vague reports by a client paying us enough to care.
- csomar 1y agoLLMs are very good at fixing bugs. They do lack broader contexts and tools to navigate the codebase/interface. That's why Claude Code was such a breakthrough despite using the very same models you run on the chat.
- xarope 1y agovery good at fixing bugs like these, which requires a senior developer to address and prompt? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 or this about MS pushing for more internal AI usage, and the resulting hilarity (or tragedy, depending if you are the one having to read the resulting code)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067
- danielbln 1y agoI disagree, agentic LLMs are incredibly useful for both.