3 ms·

Wouldn’t it be faster to write the code yourself at that point ? What’s the advantage here for you with a process like this? In your flow you also have multip

Wouldn’t it be faster to write the code yourself at that point ? What’s the advantage here for you with a process like this? In your flow you also have multiple review steps and corrections as well adds even more friction. I can see the advantage in what parent is describing however.

hoppp 1y ago
Sometimes its faster I write it, sometimes its not. I prompt like: give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use" That basically speeds up writing glue code The business logic I write myself Its faster to do the business logic myself than review what the Ai did.
- cratermoon 1y ago
  > give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use" Those tools existed before LLMs and were local, fast, and most importantly free. Why people continue to re-invent tools and workflows we already have, I don't know. Perhaps they just like to be able say "but this uses AI!"
  - hoppp 1y ago
    It was an example I only use what I need, plain and simple, and its free yup, works local too. Llms suck at large projects, so I break it down to small simple things, what I wrote is an example of a small thing, I keep the tasks that large. I can write my own code. I just use LLMs to speed up. I use whatever workflow suits me the most and saves me from typing much Code generating with LLMs is a reinvention of local tools that used to generate code, yes. Its an advanced autocomplete. But give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos. I dont think your claim that it existed before llms is correct at all. Ever code generation task could be handwritten to be reusable but that takes developer hours
    - cratermoon 1y ago
      > give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos Give me a tool that doesn't generate code full of errors.

hoppp 1y ago

Sometimes its faster I write it, sometimes its not. I prompt like: give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use" That basically speeds up writing glue code The business logic I write myself Its faster to do the business logic myself than review what the Ai did.

cratermoon 1y ago
> give me go structs for this json "pasted json" and write 2 functions to save it and load it from "nosql db I use" Those tools existed before LLMs and were local, fast, and most importantly free. Why people continue to re-invent tools and workflows we already have, I don't know. Perhaps they just like to be able say "but this uses AI!"
- hoppp 1y ago
  It was an example I only use what I need, plain and simple, and its free yup, works local too. Llms suck at large projects, so I break it down to small simple things, what I wrote is an example of a small thing, I keep the tasks that large. I can write my own code. I just use LLMs to speed up. I use whatever workflow suits me the most and saves me from typing much Code generating with LLMs is a reinvention of local tools that used to generate code, yes. Its an advanced autocomplete. But give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos. I dont think your claim that it existed before llms is correct at all. Ever code generation task could be handwritten to be reusable but that takes developer hours
  - cratermoon 1y ago
    > give me another tool that can generate code from natural language full of typos Give me a tool that doesn't generate code full of errors.