4 ms·
Fair point that blind rule-following is dangerous — but that's true of any checklist, not specific to this tool. The goal isn't religious compliance, it's surfa
by ZLStas 7mo ago
Fair point that blind rule-following is dangerous — but that's true of any checklist, not specific to this tool. The goal isn't religious compliance, it's surfacing relevant principles at the right moment so the developer can make an informed decision to follow or consciously break them.
Also — if LLM weighting on bad code is the core problem, isn't that an argument against using LLMs for coding altogether? Yet here we are, and they're useful anyway.
- bediger4000 7mo agoYour heart is pure. But people are going to "let the AI do it", just like people let calculators do it in the 1970s, or let computers do it in the 1990s. An LLM with a very small additional bit of weight is still probabilistic, and the weights favor "best practices" and median program texts. You're encouraging blind rule following My point is that LLMs weights are full of misinformation, misconception and median code. Putting a few books in isn't going to change that.