41–50 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It lets you understand the code base at reduced granularity when you want. Or zoom in beyond the written lines to explain _why_ some code is the way it is.
Why not just read the code.. Ya'll are literally letting your brain atrophy by using llms this way.
I worried this blog post was going to pivot into a marketing pitch for some product, but no, it just describes the issue where the AI tool that generates your code probably won't document its reasons for the choices it makes. That documentation problem exists in the pre-AI era too, except that the reasons might exist in the heads of your co-workers and could possibly be teased out. I know nothing about AI code genera…
The AI can't really describe its reasoning, though. It can only look at its context history and find a justification (which it will then present as reasoning). In my experience asking the model "why did you do that" carries substantial hallucination risk.
Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
Do you disagree with the point made?
Related (maybe the same thing): Whenever an agent is planning there are often architecture and product choices that it asks humans to make. None of this intent is captured in the code or comments. We started a decisions.md file and updated CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md to create an entry in the decisions.md file everytime it has to ask a human about what to do. It captures the intent so at least we have doc that describes…
Where are you keeping your design? If it's a WYSIWYG doc like word, what would it take for you to switch to a more text driven world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It lets you understand the code base at reduced granularity when you want. Or zoom in beyond the written lines to explain _why_ some code is the way it is.
Why not just read the code.. Ya'll are literally letting your brain atrophy by using llms this way.
Personally I've found one of the biggest gains with coding agents is in helping me read code. Actually - that's a lie. I don't read the code. Mostly (unless my spidey-sense goes off) I ask the LLM to read the code and tell me what it does. And then I make a decision based on that. I guess I'm wondering if the article is missing half the picture. Yes - AI is wrong some of the time (and that % varies based on a host of…
With a new code base my first goal understand how it CRUDs state. What structures and what operations?
Less concerned at the outset if its sorting carrots or processing orders for shirts.
AI seems to work way better for me when I tell it to ignore the use case and focus on surfacing runtime and mathematical operations embedded in the code.
Constraints on new abstraction and telling it to stick to math terms and types and objects also seems to help avoid hallucinations and layers of useless indirection.
Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
Maybe it's just because I grew up spending way too much time on the internet, but I write like that and have since well before LLMs. As much as people like to attribute that style to AI, I don't think it's the dead giveaway that people act like it is.
I find the constant critique of punchy style a bit tiring. It would be more productive for the grandparent to think about the content and state an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you disagree with the point made?
It matters whether something is written using an LLM even if we put aside the ethical aspects. Firstly, if your text is deadly boring to read, your point might not get across optimally and one might not just be interesting reading slop. Secondly, you might just been reading the LLM's opinion, and I'm just not interested neither. Thirdly, even if you are just using the LLM as an assistant, we know that your opinion it…
Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
Maybe it's just because I grew up spending way too much time on the internet, but I write like that and have since well before LLMs. As much as people like to attribute that style to AI, I don't think it's the dead giveaway that people act like it is.