4 ms·
I suspect the debate shouldn't be LLMs or no LLMs, but rather what level of human accountability is required. We've accepted compilers, static analyzers, and c
by 1saadcodes 2mo ago
I suspect the debate shouldn't be LLMs or no LLMs, but rather what level of human accountability is required.
We've accepted compilers, static analyzers, and code generators because the maintainer is still responsible for the final result. The interesting question is whether LLMs fundamentally change that responsibility, or just change the kinds of mistakes reviewers need to look for
- vouaobrasil 2mo agoSome of the reasons to ban LLMs are beyond what they do to code. I.e. environmental degradation, scraping without authorization, reduce human interaction etc. So I think banning them still makes sense.
- lifthrasiir 2mo agoAll of which have been challenged though. As the stake is high, any such reason (for or against LLMs, to be fair) has to be backed with Wikipedia-level evidences at the very least.
- dgellow 2mo agoIs the stake high? Doesn’t seem to be the case to me
- lifthrasiir 2mo agoIt is a project-wide concern, so the stake is obviously high.
- dgellow 2mo agoThat feels pretty easy to revert the decision later on if that doesn’t work for some reasons
- vouaobrasil 2mo agoI disagree. We should adopt caution - so that the burden of proof is on those doing the inventing.