5 ms·

I would completely disagree. I use LLMs daily for coding. They are quite far from AGI and it does not appear they are replacing Senior or Staff Engineers any ti

by extr 1y ago

I would completely disagree. I use LLMs daily for coding. They are quite far from AGI and it does not appear they are replacing Senior or Staff Engineers any time soon. But they are incredible machines that are perfectly capable of performing some economically valuable tasks in a fraction of the time it would have taken a human. If you deny this your head is in the sand.

lionkor 1y ago
Capable, yeah, but not reliable, that's my point. They can one shot fantastic code, or they can one shot the code I then have to review and pull my hair out over for a week, because it's such crap (and the person who pushed it is my boss, for example, so I can't just tell him to try again). That's not consistent.
- wahnfrieden 1y ago
  You can ask your boss to submit PRs using Codex’s “try 5 variations of the same task and select the one you like most though
  - zxor 1y ago
    Surely at that point they could write the code themselves faster than they can review 5 PRs. Producing more slop for someone else to work through is not the solution you think it is.
- extr 1y ago
  Have you never used one to hunt down an obscure bug and found the answer quicker than you likely would have yourself?
  - lionkor 1y ago
    Actually, yeah, a couple of times, but that was a rubber-ducky approach; the AI said something utterly stupid, but while trying to explain things, I figured it out. I don't think an LLM has solved any difficult problem for me before. However, I think I'm likely an outlier because I do solve most issues myself anyways.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  Why do you frame the options as "one shot... or... one shot"?
  - lionkor 1y ago
    Because lazy people will use it like that, and we are all inherently lazy
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      It's not much better with planning either. The amount of time I spent planning, clarifying requirements, hand-holding implementation details always offset any potential savings.

by extr 1y ago

lionkor 1y ago

Capable, yeah, but not reliable, that's my point. They can one shot fantastic code, or they can one shot the code I then have to review and pull my hair out over for a week, because it's such crap (and the person who pushed it is my boss, for example, so I can't just tell him to try again). That's not consistent.

wahnfrieden 1y ago
You can ask your boss to submit PRs using Codex’s “try 5 variations of the same task and select the one you like most though
- zxor 1y ago
  Surely at that point they could write the code themselves faster than they can review 5 PRs. Producing more slop for someone else to work through is not the solution you think it is.
extr 1y ago
Have you never used one to hunt down an obscure bug and found the answer quicker than you likely would have yourself?
- lionkor 1y ago
  Actually, yeah, a couple of times, but that was a rubber-ducky approach; the AI said something utterly stupid, but while trying to explain things, I figured it out. I don't think an LLM has solved any difficult problem for me before. However, I think I'm likely an outlier because I do solve most issues myself anyways.
chrisweekly 1y ago
Why do you frame the options as "one shot... or... one shot"?
- lionkor 1y ago
  Because lazy people will use it like that, and we are all inherently lazy
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    It's not much better with planning either. The amount of time I spent planning, clarifying requirements, hand-holding implementation details always offset any potential savings.