3 ms·
Disagree. If some small adjustments to your workflow or expectations enable you to use LLMs to produce good, working, high-quality code much faster than you cou
by afc 1y ago
Disagree. If some small adjustments to your workflow or expectations enable you to use LLMs to produce good, working, high-quality code much faster than you could otherwise, at some point you should absolutely welcome this, not stubbornly refuse change.
- chmod775 1y agoSomehow I don't think writing verbose English to communicate with an LLM is ever going to beat a language purpose-built for its particular niche. Being terse is the point and what makes it so useful. If people wanted to use python with their LLM instead, they have that option.
- geocar 1y agoI think there's a mighty big assumption in there. I see no reason to believe LLMs can write working let alone good or high-quality code, nor that the adjustments to my workflow or expectations will be small. But sure, if such a thing happened, I would probably welcome it. Meanwhile, there are people who write good and high-quality working code faster than me, and they all write as much as possible on one line with the most bare-bones of text editors, so I will continue to learn from them, rather than the people who say LLMs are helping them. Maybe you should reconsider.