4 ms·

Yes, this is (partly) why developer salaries are so high. I can trust my coworkers in ways not possible with AI. There is no process solution for low performer

by zjzkshz 9mo ago

Yes, this is (partly) why developer salaries are so high. I can trust my coworkers in ways not possible with AI. There is no process solution for low performers (as of today).

dpark 9mo ago
The solution for low performers is very close oversight. If you imagine an LLM as a very junior engineer who needs an inordinate amount of hand holding (but who can also read and write about 1000x faster than you and who gets paid approximately nothing), you can get a lot of useful work out of it. A lot of the criticisms of AI coding seem to come from people who think that the only way to use AI is to treat it as a peer. “Code this up and commit to main” is probably a workable model for throwaway projects. It’s not workable for long term projects, at least not currently.
- nmehner 9mo ago
  A Junior programmer is a total waste of time if they don't learn. I don't help Juniors because it is an effective use of my time, but because there is hope that they'll learn and become Seniors. It is a long term investment. LLMs are not.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    Just like LLMs are a total waste of time if you never update the system/developer prompts with additional information as you learn what's important to communicate vs not.
    - nmehner 9mo ago
      That is a completely different level. I expect a Junior Developer to be able to completely replace me long term and to be able decide when existing rules are outdated and when they should be replaced. Challenge my decisions without me asking for it. Being able to adapt what they have learned to new types of projects or new programming languages. Being Senior is setting the rules. An LLM only follows rules/prompts. They can never become Senior.
  - dpark 9mo ago
    It’s a metaphor. With enough oversight, a qualified engineer can get good results out of an underperforming (or extremely junior) engineer. With a junior engineer, you give the oversight to help them grow. With an underperforming engineer you hope they grow quickly or you eventually terminate their employment because it’s a poor time trade off. The trade off with an LLM is different. It’s not actually a junior or underperforming engineer. It’s far faster at churning out code than even the best engineers. It can read code far faster. It writes tests more consistently than most engineers (in my experience). It is surprisingly good at catching edge cases. With a junior engineer, you drag down your own performance to improve theirs and you’re often trading off short term benefits vs long term. With an LLM, your net performance goes up because it’s augmenting you with its own strengths. As an engineer, it will never reach senior level (though future models might). But as a tool, it can enable you to do more.
    - 12_throw_away 9mo ago
      > It’s far faster at churning out code than even the best engineers. I'm not sure I can think of a more damning indictment than this tbh
      - dpark 9mo ago
        Can you explain why that’s damning?
        nmehner 9mo ago
        I guess everyone dealing with legacy software sees code as a cost factor. Being able to delete code is harder, but often more important than writing code. Owning code requires you to maintain it. Finding out what parts of the code actual implement features and what parts are not needed anymore (or were never needed in the first place) is really hard. Since most of the time the requirements have never been documented and the authors have left or cannot remember. But not understanding what the code does removed all possibility to improve or modify it. This is how software dies. Churning out code fast is a huge future liability. Management wants solutions fast and doesn't understand these long term costs. It is the same with all code generators: Short term gains, but long term maintainability issues.
victorbjorklund 9mo ago
I think you're making a mistake if your reviews are just that you trust that your co-workers never make a mistake. I make mistakes. My co-workers make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes, that's why we have code reviews.

by zjzkshz 9mo ago

Yes, this is (partly) why developer salaries are so high. I can trust my coworkers in ways not possible with AI. There is no process solution for low performers (as of today).

dpark 9mo ago

The solution for low performers is very close oversight. If you imagine an LLM as a very junior engineer who needs an inordinate amount of hand holding (but who can also read and write about 1000x faster than you and who gets paid approximately nothing), you can get a lot of useful work out of it. A lot of the criticisms of AI coding seem to come from people who think that the only way to use AI is to treat it as a peer. “Code this up and commit to main” is probably a workable model for throwaway projects. It’s not workable for long term projects, at least not currently.

nmehner 9mo ago
A Junior programmer is a total waste of time if they don't learn. I don't help Juniors because it is an effective use of my time, but because there is hope that they'll learn and become Seniors. It is a long term investment. LLMs are not.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  Just like LLMs are a total waste of time if you never update the system/developer prompts with additional information as you learn what's important to communicate vs not.
  - nmehner 9mo ago
    That is a completely different level. I expect a Junior Developer to be able to completely replace me long term and to be able decide when existing rules are outdated and when they should be replaced. Challenge my decisions without me asking for it. Being able to adapt what they have learned to new types of projects or new programming languages. Being Senior is setting the rules. An LLM only follows rules/prompts. They can never become Senior.
- dpark 9mo ago
  It’s a metaphor. With enough oversight, a qualified engineer can get good results out of an underperforming (or extremely junior) engineer. With a junior engineer, you give the oversight to help them grow. With an underperforming engineer you hope they grow quickly or you eventually terminate their employment because it’s a poor time trade off. The trade off with an LLM is different. It’s not actually a junior or underperforming engineer. It’s far faster at churning out code than even the best engineers. It can read code far faster. It writes tests more consistently than most engineers (in my experience). It is surprisingly good at catching edge cases. With a junior engineer, you drag down your own performance to improve theirs and you’re often trading off short term benefits vs long term. With an LLM, your net performance goes up because it’s augmenting you with its own strengths. As an engineer, it will never reach senior level (though future models might). But as a tool, it can enable you to do more.
  - 12_throw_away 9mo ago
    > It’s far faster at churning out code than even the best engineers. I'm not sure I can think of a more damning indictment than this tbh
    - dpark 9mo ago
      Can you explain why that’s damning?
      - nmehner 9mo ago
        I guess everyone dealing with legacy software sees code as a cost factor. Being able to delete code is harder, but often more important than writing code. Owning code requires you to maintain it. Finding out what parts of the code actual implement features and what parts are not needed anymore (or were never needed in the first place) is really hard. Since most of the time the requirements have never been documented and the authors have left or cannot remember. But not understanding what the code does removed all possibility to improve or modify it. This is how software dies. Churning out code fast is a huge future liability. Management wants solutions fast and doesn't understand these long term costs. It is the same with all code generators: Short term gains, but long term maintainability issues.

victorbjorklund 9mo ago

I think you're making a mistake if your reviews are just that you trust that your co-workers never make a mistake. I make mistakes. My co-workers make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes, that's why we have code reviews.