7 ms·
The same logic applies to your statement: > Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output. Okay, when tha
by kjksf 5mo ago
The same logic applies to your statement:
> Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output.
Okay, when that happens, then sure, you'll have a problem.
I have not seen any evidence that that is currently the case i.e. I have no problems correcting LLM output when needed.
When the situation changes, then we can talk about pulling back on LLM usage.
And the crucial point is: me.
I'm not saying that everyone that uses LLM to generate code won't fall into "not able to use LLM generated code".
I now generate 90% of the code with LLM and I see no issues so far. Just implementing features faster. Fixing bugs faster.
- lelanthran 5mo ago> The same logic applies to your statement: >> Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output. > Okay, when that happens, then sure, you'll have a problem. It's not exactly the same: how will you know that you are missing errors due to lack of knowledge? > I now generate 90% of the code with LLM and I see no issues so far. Well, that's my point, innit? "I see no errors" is exactly the same outcome from "missing the errors that are generated".