131–140 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company mandates AI usage and logs AI usage metrics as input to performance evaluation, so I use it every day. It's a Copilot subscription, though.
why though? are they just using it as a proxy for "is 'gitremote' working today?"
There was a recent discussion, “Why AI Needs Hard Rules, Not Vibe Checks” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152838 ). We need as many checks as possible - and ideally ones that come for free (e.g., guaranteed by types, lifetimes, etc.) - which is why Rust might be the language for vibe coding. Without checks and feedback, LLMs can easily generate unsafe code. So even if they can generate C or Assembly that wor…
Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors. If LLMs produce code riddled with bugs in one language it will do in other languages as well. Rust isn't going to save you.
You can't get a gutter ball if you put up the rails in a bowling lane. Rust's memory safety is the rails here.
You might get different "bad code" from AI, but if it can self-validate that some code it spits out has memory management issues at compile time, it helps the development. Same as with a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. I would never be able to give my Jira tickets to an LLM because they're too damn vague or incomplete. Getting the requirements first needs 4 rounds of lobbying with all stakeholders.
A significant part of my LLM workflow involves having the LLM write and update tickets for me. It can make a vague ticket precise and that can be an easy platform to have discussions with stakeholders.
Thank you for sharing this workflow. I have low tolerance for LLM written text, but this seems like a really good use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. I would never be able to give my Jira tickets to an LLM because they're too damn vague or incomplete. Getting the requirements first needs 4 rounds of lobbying with all stakeholders.
A significant part of my LLM workflow involves having the LLM write and update tickets for me. It can make a vague ticket precise and that can be an easy platform to have discussions with stakeholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors. Like everything around Rust, this has been discussed ad nauseam. Preventing memory safety bugs has a meaningful impact in reducing CVEs, even if it has no impact on logic bugs. (Which: I think you could argue the flexible and expressive type system helps with. But for the sake of this argument, let's say it provides no benefits.)
It isn't like rust is the only language with memory safety; plenty of high level languages don't let you fiddle with memory bits in a way that would be unsafe. The tradeoff is that they typically come with garbage collectors. If the only concern is "can an LLM write code in this language without memory errors" then there's plenty of reasons to choose a language other than Rust.
These trade-offs are wholly unnecessary if the LLM writes the software in Rust, assuming that in principle the LLM is able to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If AI doesn't make you more productive you're using it wrong, end of story. Even if you don't let it author or write a single line of code, from collecting information, inspecting code, reviewing requirements, reviewing PRs, finding bugs, hell even researching information online, there's so many things it does well and fast that if you're not leveraging it, you're either in denial or have ai skill issues period.
Not to refute your point but I’ve met overly confident people with “AI skills” who are “extremely productive” with it, while producing garbage without knowing, or not being able to tell the difference.