I built Brokk to maximize the ability of humans to effectively supervise their AI minions. Not a VS code plugin, we need something new. https://brokk.ai
Human coders are still better than LLMs
111–120 of 762 posts
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#112I disagree—'human coders' is a broad and overly general term. Sure, Antirez might believe he's better than AI when it comes to coding Redis internals , but across the broader programming landscape—spanning hundreds of languages, paradigms, and techniques—I'm confident AI has the upper hand.
Unless you’re a web dev. Then youre right and will be replaced soon enough. Guess why.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
So here's an analogy. (Yeah, I know, proof by analogy is fraud. But it's going to illustrate the question.) Here's a kid out hoeing rows for corn. He sees someone planting with a tractor, and decides that's the way to go. Someone tells him, "If you get a tractor, you'll never develop the muscles that would make you really great at hoeing." Different analogy: Here's someone trying to learn to paint. They see someone p…
> Here's a kid out hoeing rows for corn. He sees someone planting with a tractor, and decides that's the way to go. Someone tells him, "If you get a tractor, you'll never develop the muscles that would make you really great at hoeing In this example the idea that losing the muscles that make you great at hoeing" seems kind of like a silly thing to worry about But I think there's a second order effect here. The kid ge…
That's true in the short term, but let's be real, tilling soil isn't likely to become a lost art. I mean, we use big machines right now but here we are talking about using a hoe.
If you remove the context of LLMs from the discussion, it reads like you're arguing that technological progress in general is bad because people would eventually struggle to live without it. I know you probably didn't intend that, but it's worth considering.
It's also sort of the point in an optimistic sense. I don't really know what it takes on a practical level to be a subsistence farmer. That's probably a good sign, all things considered. I go to the gym 6 times a week, try to eat pretty well, I'm probably better off compared to toiling in the fields.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#114There's some whistling past the graveyard in these comments. "You still need humans for the social element...", "LLMs are bad at debugging", "LLMs lead you astray". And yeah, there's lots of truth in those assertions, but since I started playing with LLMs to generate code a couple of years ago they've made huge strides. I suspect that over the next couple of years the improvements won't be quite as large (Pareto Prin…
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#115Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#116I disagree—'human coders' is a broad and overly general term. Sure, Antirez might believe he's better than AI when it comes to coding Redis internals , but across the broader programming landscape—spanning hundreds of languages, paradigms, and techniques—I'm confident AI has the upper hand.
What does the number of buzzwords and frameworks on a resume matter? Engineering is so much more than that it’s not even worth mentioning. You’re comparison is on the easiest aspect of what we do. Unless you’re a web dev. Then youre right and will be replaced soon enough. Guess why.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#117seems comparable to chess where it's well established that a human + a computer is much more skilled than either one individually
This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time. Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm. "AI" would be incapable of even writing /bin/true without having seen it before. It certainly wouldn't have been able to write Redis.
> Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm.
Ironically, that also "hasn't been true for a long time". The best chess engines humans have written with "defined algorithms" were bested by RL (alphazero) engines a long time ago. The best of the best are now NNUE + algos (latest stockfish). And even then NN based engines (Leela0) can occasionally take some games from Stockfish. NNs are scarily good. And the bitter lesson is bitter for a reason.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#118Let's not forget that LLMs can't give a solution they have not experienced themselves
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#119I disagree—'human coders' is a broad and overly general term. Sure, Antirez might believe he's better than AI when it comes to coding Redis internals , but across the broader programming landscape—spanning hundreds of languages, paradigms, and techniques—I'm confident AI has the upper hand.
Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs
#120This matches my experience. I actually think a fair amount of value from LLM assistants to me is having a reasonably intelligent rubber duck to talk to. Now the duck can occasionally disagree and sometimes even refine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging I think the big question everyone wants to skip right to and past this conversation is, will this continue to be true 2 years from now? I don’t kno…
It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever, but humans plus software is going to better than either alone for a long time.