161–170 of 236 posts
Have OpenAI Codex do code reviews, it’s the best one so far at code reviews. Yes, it’s ironic (or not) that the code writer is not the best reviewer.
>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…
I really love AI for lots of things, but, when I'm reading a post, the AI aesthetic has started to grate. I read articles and they all have the same "LLM" aesthetic, and I feel like I'm reading posts written by the same person. Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical er…
I used Claude to expand on my ideas for a few of the purely informational things, and for formatting, but this article is largely written by hand.
For example "Interface tests are the ability to know what's wrong and explaining it." is in hindsight a confusing sentence. Many such cases.
I really love AI for lots of things, but, when I'm reading a post, the AI aesthetic has started to grate. I read articles and they all have the same "LLM" aesthetic, and I feel like I'm reading posts written by the same person. Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical er…
what's crazy to me is that it's literally a sentence in your prompt to make it change the style, but i guess some people are not bothered by it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's correct, you didn't write it. Do you also avoid using frameworks and libraries for desire of feeling like you wrote the program you produced? You must have another reason to not want to use this code.
When you use frameworks or libraries, you are trusting (hoping) the author(s) spent the time to get it right. At a minimum, the framework/library is documented in literal documentation and/or code that's static and can be read and understood by you. Ask an LLM to do a task 3 times, you'll get 3 different outputs - they're non-deterministic. I catch a lot of nonsensical and inefficient code when I have that "back and…
absolute opposite here.
LLMs , for better or worse, generally stick to paradigms if they have the codebase in front of them to read.
This is rarely the case when dealing with an amateur's code.
Amateurs write functional-ish code. TDD-ish tests. If the language they're using supports it types will be spotty or inconsistent. Variable naming schemes will change with the current trend when the author wrote that snippet ; and whatever format they want to use that day will use randomized vocabulary with lots of non-speak like 'value', or 'entry' in ambiguous roles.
LLMs write gibberish all day, BUT will generally abide by style documents fairly well. Humams... don't.
These things evolve as the codebase matures, obviously, but that's because it was polished into something good. LLMs can't reason well and their logic sometimes sucks, but if the AGENTS.md says that all variables shall be cat breeds -- damnit that's what it'll do (to a fault).
but my point : real logic and reasoning problems become easier to spot when you're not correcting stupid things all day. it's essentially always about knowing how to use the model and whatever platform it's jumping from. Don't give it the keys to create the logical foundation of the code, use it to polish brass.
garbage in -> garbage out ain't going anywhere.
I really love AI for lots of things, but, when I'm reading a post, the AI aesthetic has started to grate. I read articles and they all have the same "LLM" aesthetic, and I feel like I'm reading posts written by the same person. Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical er…
My brain kinda shuts off when I read this stuff because I know it's more of a "text shaped object" than actual text. I find LLM text to be too fluffy and information sparse much of the time so I subconsciously start skimming it more than actually reading it.
I really love AI for lots of things, but, when I'm reading a post, the AI aesthetic has started to grate. I read articles and they all have the same "LLM" aesthetic, and I feel like I'm reading posts written by the same person. Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical er…
What sections where you most off put by? I used Claude to expand on my ideas for a few of the purely informational things, and for formatting, but this article is largely written by hand. For example "Interface tests are the ability to know what's wrong and explaining it." is in hindsight a confusing sentence. Many such cases.
> Enter Claude Code 2.0.
> The UX had evolved. The harness is more flexible and robust. Bugs are fixed. But that's all secondary.
It's OK for emphasis on some things, but when you see it on every blog, it's a bit much.
Plus, I dislike that everything is lists with LLMs, it's another thing that you just start seeing everywhere.
This is a good guide on how to use Claude code. My perspective (from an early adopter of LLMs for coding) is similar. Though, open code has a lot of potential as well. So I'm happy that Claude Code is not the only option. But a key aspect imo is that, using these tools is also a skill; And there's a lot of knowledge involved in making something good with the assistance of Claude code vs doing slop. Specially as soon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sections where you most off put by? I used Claude to expand on my ideas for a few of the purely informational things, and for formatting, but this article is largely written by hand. For example "Interface tests are the ability to know what's wrong and explaining it." is in hindsight a confusing sentence. Many such cases.
It's things like this "super impactful!!!" style it has: > Enter Claude Code 2.0. > The UX had evolved. The harness is more flexible and robust. Bugs are fixed. But that's all secondary. It's OK for emphasis on some things, but when you see it on every blog, it's a bit much. Plus, I dislike that everything is lists with LLMs, it's another thing that you just start seeing everywhere.
Either a) I sound like an LLM when I'm writing articles (possible) or b) turing test AGI something something.
Lists point is fair, I did use Claude for formatting. Where did it off put you here?
If AI-hype was a person