Live data from Hacker News

Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

kix.dev

231–240 of 382 posts

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#231
For 2) I feel like codex-5 kind of attempted to address this problem, with codex it usually asks a lot of questions and give options before digging in (without me prompting it to).

For copy-paste, you made it feel like a low-hanging fruit? Why don't AI agents have copy/paste tools?

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#232
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think was the reason that the bootcamp grads struggling to get better at what they do?

A computer science degree in most US colleges takes about 4 years of work. Boot camps try to cram that into 6 months. All the while many students have other full-time jobs. This is simply not enough training for the students to start solving complex real world problem. Even 4 years is not enough. Many companies were willing to hire fresh college grads in the hopes that they could solve relatively easy problems for a…

> Any need we had for a junior dev has completely disappeared.

Where do your senior devs come from?

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#233
post #37

Recently, I asked Codex CLI to refactor some HTML files. It didn't literally copy and pasted snippets here and there as I would have done myself, it rewrote them from memory, removing comments in the process. There was a section with 40 successive links with complex URLs. A few days later, just before deployment to production, I wanted to double check all 40 links. First one worked. Second one worked. Third one worke…

Evals don't fix this.

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#235
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had similar experience both in coding and in non-coding research questions. An LLM will do the first N right and fake its work on the rest. It even happens when asking an LLM to reformat a document, or asking it to do extra research to validate information. For example, before a recent trip to another city, I asked Gemini to prepare a list of brewery taprooms with certain information, and I discovered it had inc…

LLMs are not good at "cycles" - when you have to go over a list and do the same action on each item. It's like it has ADHD and forgets or gets distracted in the middle. And the reason for that is that LLMs don't have memory and process the tokens, so as they keep going over the list the context becomes bigger with more irrelevant information and they can lose the reason they are doing what they are doing.

So much for Difference and Repetition.

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#236
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had similar experience both in coding and in non-coding research questions. An LLM will do the first N right and fake its work on the rest. It even happens when asking an LLM to reformat a document, or asking it to do extra research to validate information. For example, before a recent trip to another city, I asked Gemini to prepare a list of brewery taprooms with certain information, and I discovered it had inc…

LLMs are not good at "cycles" - when you have to go over a list and do the same action on each item. It's like it has ADHD and forgets or gets distracted in the middle. And the reason for that is that LLMs don't have memory and process the tokens, so as they keep going over the list the context becomes bigger with more irrelevant information and they can lose the reason they are doing what they are doing.

Which is annoying because that is precisely the kind of boring rote programming tasks I want an LLM to do for me, to free up my time for more interesting problems

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#237
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> About half of the code generated fake data rather than actually do anything with the system. All the time // fake data. in production this would be real data ... proceeds to write sometimes hundreds of lines of code to provide fake data

"hey claude, please remove the fake data and use the real data" "sure thing, I'll add logic to check if the real data exists and only use the fake data as a fallback in case the real data doesn't exist"

[deleted]

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#238
post #37

Recently, I asked Codex CLI to refactor some HTML files. It didn't literally copy and pasted snippets here and there as I would have done myself, it rewrote them from memory, removing comments in the process. There was a section with 40 successive links with complex URLs. A few days later, just before deployment to production, I wanted to double check all 40 links. First one worked. Second one worked. Third one worke…

Reminds me when I asked Claude (through Windsurf) to create a S3 Lambda trigger to resize images (as soon as PNG image appears in S3, resize it). The code looked flawless and I deployed ..only to learn that I introduced a perpetual loop :) For every image resized, a new one would be created and resized. In 5 min, the trigger created hundreds of thousands of images ...what a joy was to clean that up in S3

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#239
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had similar experience both in coding and in non-coding research questions. An LLM will do the first N right and fake its work on the rest. It even happens when asking an LLM to reformat a document, or asking it to do extra research to validate information. For example, before a recent trip to another city, I asked Gemini to prepare a list of brewery taprooms with certain information, and I discovered it had inc…

LLMs are not good at "cycles" - when you have to go over a list and do the same action on each item. It's like it has ADHD and forgets or gets distracted in the middle. And the reason for that is that LLMs don't have memory and process the tokens, so as they keep going over the list the context becomes bigger with more irrelevant information and they can lose the reason they are doing what they are doing.

It would be nice if the tools we usually use for LLMs had a bit more programmability. In this example, It we could imagine being able to chunk up work by processing a few items, then reverting to a previous saved LLM checkpoint of state, and repeating until the list is complete.

I imagine that the cost of saving & loading the current state must be prohibitively high for this to be a normal pattern, though.

Re: Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at

#240
post #37

Recently, I asked Codex CLI to refactor some HTML files. It didn't literally copy and pasted snippets here and there as I would have done myself, it rewrote them from memory, removing comments in the process. There was a section with 40 successive links with complex URLs. A few days later, just before deployment to production, I wanted to double check all 40 links. First one worked. Second one worked. Third one worke…

Evals don't fix this.

Maybe they don't fix it, but I suspect that they move us towards it occurring less often.
Post reply on HN