4 ms·
Exactly. AI is minimally useful for coding something that you couldn't have been able to code yourself, given enough time, without explicitly investing time in
by roncesvalles 10mo ago
Exactly. AI is minimally useful for coding something that you couldn't have been able to code yourself, given enough time, without explicitly investing time in generic learning not specific to that codebase or particular task.
Although calling AI "just autocomplete" is almost a slur now, it really is just that in the sense that you need to A) have a decent mental picture of what you want, and, B) recognize a correct output when you see it.
On a tangent, the inability to identify correct output is also why I don't recommend using LLMs to teach you anything serious. When we use a search engine to learn something, we know when we've stumbled upon a really good piece of pedagogy through various signals like information density, logical consistency, structuredness/clarity of thought, consensus, reviews, author's credentials etc. But with LLMs we lose these critical analysis signals.
- teeeew 10mo agoAbsolutely spot on. You are calling out the and subtle nuance that many don’t get…
- deadbabe 10mo agoYou could have another LLM tell you which is the correct output.
- s1mplicissimus 10mo ago... and then a third one to check wether the second one was right. then a forth one to... o wait
- jakeydus 10mo agoAnd when the whole world is covered in datacenters, how will we continue to scale?
- avbanks 10mo agoI've been trying to articulate this exact point. The problem w/ LLM's is that at times they are very capable but always unreliable.
- dizlexic 9mo agoWhile you're correct. I truly believe the velocity offered outweighs this consideration for 90% of the application teams and startups. I've personally never worked in a clean codebase, and I've been convinced long ago that they're mythical. I don't see an issue with an LLM spitting out bad / barely maintainable code because that's basically every codebase I've ever seen in production.