3 ms·
if you back and forth with the model, and discuss/approve every change it does, that's the problem. you need to give it a bigish thing so it can work 15 min on
by hurturue 11mo ago
if you back and forth with the model, and discuss/approve every change it does, that's the problem.
you need to give it a bigish thing so it can work 15 min on it. and in those 15 min you prepare the next one(s)
- jdmoreira 11mo agoSure. But am I supposed to still understand that code at some point? Am I supposed to ask other team members to review and approve that code as if I had written it? I'm still trying to ship quality work by the same standards I had 3 or 5 years ago.
- hurturue 11mo agowhen compiler appeared assembly programmers would complain all day how ugly and inneficient the generated code was if you want to get the productivity gain you need to figure out how to solve the code review problem
- bccdee 11mo agoYour solution is, "just ship worse code, it's probably fine"? I think it's your standards that have fallen 90%…
- onehair 11mo agoNo not, worse code. Wrong code. Code filled with bugs. Code filled with lawsuits too. Code that make you look productive this month while you prepare to leave the company, and turn out to be absolute pooopoo the day after you leave.
- jdmoreira 11mo agoI think there might be something here! a core of truth about what the future might hold. I cant take this approach right now though. Its not a good approach today.
- christophilus 11mo agoBut did the generated code do what you told it to do and was it deterministic? LLMs aren’t the same at all. That metaphor doesn’t work.