Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No LLM Code in Dependencies

joeyh.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#111

Post by sscaryterry »

gspr wrote: post #105
sscaryterry wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When given the choice between putting food on the table, and being a purist, I'd take some bread. It is hard out there.

Sure. I did not mean to throw shade at people whose professional survival depends on doing this. I'm merely trying to establish that it's bad . A lot of HN seems to be cheering for the badness. That is, to me, unfathomable.

You are trying to establish that it is bad based on your beliefs.

I've pointed out to you that LLMs are forced onto people. I fear you are out of touch with the job market requirements of 2026.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#112

Post by gspr »

sscaryterry wrote: post #111
gspr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I did not mean to throw shade at people whose professional survival depends on doing this. I'm merely trying to establish that it's bad . A lot of HN seems to be cheering for the badness. That is, to me, unfathomable.

You are trying to establish that it is bad based on your beliefs. I've pointed out to you that LLMs are forced onto people. I fear you are out of touch with the job market requirements of 2026.

Huh? You can accept things that are forced onto you, due to needing to earn a living, while still acknowledging that the things that are forced onto you are bad.

All I'm trying to say here is that slopcode is generally a bad idea. If you are forced to slopcode to earn a living, I am not saying you shouldn't do that ("be a purist", as you'd put it). I'm just trying to point out that HN doesn't seem to generally acknowledge that concept as being bad.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#113

Post by sscaryterry »

gspr wrote: post #112
sscaryterry wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to establish that it is bad based on your beliefs. I've pointed out to you that LLMs are forced onto people. I fear you are out of touch with the job market requirements of 2026.

Huh? You can accept things that are forced onto you, due to needing to earn a living, while still acknowledging that the things that are forced onto you are bad. All I'm trying to say here is that slopcode is generally a bad idea. If you are forced to slopcode to earn a living, I am not saying you shouldn't do that ("be a purist", as you'd put it). I'm just trying to point out that HN doesn't seem to generally acknow…

I think it is much too early to outright say it is bad. Very few things are trivial enough to classify in a binary way as in bad or good.

Slop is not okay, this isn't disputed.

When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#114

Post by gspr »

sscaryterry wrote: post #113
gspr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? You can accept things that are forced onto you, due to needing to earn a living, while still acknowledging that the things that are forced onto you are bad. All I'm trying to say here is that slopcode is generally a bad idea. If you are forced to slopcode to earn a living, I am not saying you shouldn't do that ("be a purist", as you'd put it). I'm just trying to point out that HN doesn't seem to generally acknow…

I think it is much too early to outright say it is bad . Very few things are trivial enough to classify in a binary way as in bad or good . Slop is not okay, this isn't disputed. When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

> When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

No.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#115

Post by sscaryterry »

gspr wrote: post #114
sscaryterry wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is much too early to outright say it is bad . Very few things are trivial enough to classify in a binary way as in bad or good . Slop is not okay, this isn't disputed. When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it.

> When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it. No.

Fair enough. Honestly, nobody is "forced" to slopcode, this is the human's decision, no?

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#116

Post by gspr »

sscaryterry wrote: post #115
gspr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you say "If you are forced to slopcode" you are implying that LLMs (or humans who operate the tools) can only produce slop with it. No.

Fair enough. Honestly, nobody is "forced" to slopcode, this is the human's decision, no?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48767422

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#117

Post by sscaryterry »

gspr wrote: post #116
sscaryterry wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Honestly, nobody is "forced" to slopcode, this is the human's decision, no?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48767422

!Purist != Slopper

Just because you are forced to use an LLM, does not mean you can only produce slop.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#120

Post by lukaslalinsky »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #71
hypfer wrote: post #50

What confuses me about this stance is that LLMs are basically indistinguishable from any mid-to-low-tier dev. And those we've let into our codebases with no concerns. Hell, some even threw parties inviting in more of them. At least LLMs don't call HR on you when you rightfully tell them that they're full of shit. Though.. well. Claude probably might.

LLMs are worse at programming than any dev I've ever worked with. Yes, even $latest_model. They have no understanding or ability to reason, and they make mistakes no human would make. They are, in short, bad at programming.

If I had coworkers with the ability to program like Sonnet 3.7 did, I'd be extremely happy. In reality, I can probably count 1-3 people like that, out of many over the years. Honestly, pair programming with Opus is better than any pair programming I had with a human, especially at understanding the reasons behind my designs.
Post reply on HN