3 ms·
Writing code with LLMs takes discipline and is difficult. You need to learn how to do it and how to get the best from it. Software engineering is dead, long li
by iamflimflam1 1mo ago
Writing code with LLMs takes discipline and is difficult. You need to learn how to do it and how to get the best from it.
Software engineering is dead, long live software engineering!
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoIt really isn't that hard. The LLM needs a few iterations of self review, and you need to ask it for an architecture up front, but from there, it's mostly manual testing to make sure the LLM didn't fuck up. I don't think it'd take more than a few weeks for a high schooler to learn how to prompt well.
- iamflimflam1 1mo agoMaybe - but I would argue that the skill comes in knowing if the architecture is appropriate and knowing that LLM is not screwing it up.
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoYou can get more confidence by asking the LLM about when the architecture would be appropriate than by trying to intuit it yourself. The LLM is trained on so many more architectures and stories of how they panned out than you are. The skill is really in manually testing before handoff.
- queenkjuul 1mo agoI still get occasional hallucinations, wrong answers, and entirely unnecessary change proposals from LLMs. An LLM being confident in its own work does not make me confident in it.
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoYou get that from humans too.
- queenkjuul 1mo agoNo shit, that's why we review code... You're not making a point
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoAnd LLMs are already better code reviewers than humans are; take a look at the bugs found in the Linux kernel.
- simonw 1mo agoYour hypothetical high schooler would have to learn what architecture is, and then what self review is, and iteration, and manual testing... and what "code" and "software" is first.
- springtimesun 1mo agoThis is something devs don’t give enough credit. You may think you’re just promoting, but ask someone outside the field to prompt their way to a feature and you will see very clearly what your experience is bringing to the table.
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoYeah, but train them for a month on how to get the AI to help them prompt, and they'll do fine. AIs are extremely effective at letting you offload skill, you just need to know how to ask. This should surprise nobody, since this is what they were and built for. I genuinely don't think you need much training for creating code any more. The skill can be offloaded.
- simonw 1mo agoI had a conversation with someone about this the other day where they asked what AI was useful for, and I said programming, and they asked what programming was, and I eventually stumbled into "it's how you make apps". I'm not worried for my career.
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoFascinating. What an extreme outlier. Where did you find them? Did you also have to explain what an app was? Anyways, if being more capable than them is the bar you think you need to clear, I suppose you'll be fine. I still stand by my statement: there's no deep knowledge needed to deliver most of the software we need today, just some iteration on prompts. And the AI is getting better pretty quickly. You need to be able to explain what you want, why the AI got it wrong, and paste the error you see. It takes some focused training, but so does being a line chef at a restaurant.
- bossyTeacher 1mo ago> I don't think it'd take more than a few weeks for a high schooler to learn how to prompt well. Devs are notoriously bad at estimating tasks.
- a2ff6eeb0 1mo agoI have a non-technical cousin that figured it out on their own just fine.