5 ms·
Came here to say that. It’s important to remember how biased hacker news is in that regard. I’m just out of ten years in the safety critical market, and I can a
by Raphael_Amiard 1y ago
Came here to say that. It’s important to remember how biased hacker news is in that regard. I’m just out of ten years in the safety critical market, and I can assure you that our clients are still a long way from being able to use those. I myself work in low level/runtime/compilers, and the output from AIs is often too erratic to be useful
- djeastm 1y ago>our clients are still a long way from being able to use those So it's simply a matter of time >often too erratic to be useful So sometimes it is useful.
- layer8 1y agoToo erratic to be net useful.
- anuramat 1y agoEven for code reviews/test generation/documentation search?
- layer8 1y agoDocumentation search I might agree, but that wasn’t really the context, I think. Code reviews is hit and miss, but maybe doesn’t hurt too much. They aren’t better at writing good tests than at writing good code in the first place.
- anuramat 1y ago> wasn't the context yeah, I'm just curious about the vibe in general > good tests are there any downsides to adding "bad tests" though? as long as you keep generated tests separate, it's basically free regression testing, and if something meaningfully breaks on a refactor, you can promote it to not-actually-slop
- OldfieldFund 1y agoI would say that the average Hacker News user is negatively biased against LLMs and does not use coding agents to their benefit. At least what I can tell from the highly upvoted articles and comments.