seems comparable to chess where it's well established that a human + a computer is much more skilled than either one individually
Human coders are still better than LLMs
11–20 of 762 posts
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#12OK. (I mean, it was an interesting and relevant question.)
The other, related question is, are human coders with an LLM better than human coders without an LLM, and by how much?
(habnds made the same point, just before I did.)
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#13“Better” is always task-dependent. LLMs are already far better than me (and most devs I’d imagine) at rote things like getting CSS syntax right for a desired effect, or remembering the right way to invoke a popular library (e.g. fetch) These little side quests used to eat a lot of my time and I’m happy to have a tool that can do these almost instantly.
I think that's great if it's for something outside of your primary language. I've used it to good effect in that way myself. However, denying yourself the reflexive memory of having learned those things is a quick way to become wholly dependent upon the tool. You could easily end up with compromised solutions because the tool recommends something you don't understand well enough to know there's a better way to do something.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#14same as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44127956, also on HN front page
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#15seems comparable to chess where it's well established that a human + a computer is much more skilled than either one individually
I don't think that's been true for a while now -- computers are that much better.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#16The question is, for how long?
It's really gonna depend on the project. When my hobby project was greenfield, the AI was way better than I am. It was (still is) more knowledgable about the standards that govern the field and about low level interface details. It can shit out a bunch of code that relies on knowing these details in seconds/minutes, rather than hours/days.
Now that the project has grown and all that stuff is hammered out, it can't seem to consistently write code that compiles. It's very tunnel visioned on the specific file its generating, rather than where that fits in the context of what/how we're building what we're building.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#17[deleted]
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#18Looks like this pen is not going to replace the artist after all.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#19From my limited experience, former coder now management but I still get to code now and then. I've found them helpful but also intrusive. Sometimes when it guesses the code for the rest of the line and next few lines it's going down a path I don't want to go but I have to take time to scan it. Maybe it's a configuration issue, but i'd prefer it didn't put code directly in my way or be off by default and only show when I hit a key combo.
One thing I know is that I wouldn't ask an LLM to write an entire section of code or even a function without going in and reviewing.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#20but their rate of improvement is like 1000x human devs, so you have to wonder what the shot clock says for most working devs