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

The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

lewiscampbell.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#251

Post by bagacrap »

wild_egg wrote: post #41
rudedogg wrote: post #3

Hearing people on tech twitter say that LLMs always produce better code than they do by hand was pretty enlightening for me. LLMs can produce better code for languages and domains I’m not proficient in, at a much faster rate, but damn it’s rare I look at LLM output and don’t spot something I’d do measurably better. These things are average text generation machines. Yes you can improve the output quality by writing a…

After a certain experience level though, I think most of us get to the point of knowing what that difference in quality actually matters. Some seniors love to bikeshed PRs all day because they can do it better but generally that activity has zero actual value. Sometimes it matters, often it doesn't. Stop with the "I could do this better by hand" and ask "is it worth the extra 4 hours to do this by hand, or is this ac…

I think this is an opportunity for that bell curve/enlightenment meme. Of course as you get a little past junior, you often get hung up on the best way of doing things without worrying about best being the enemy of good enough. But truly senior devs know the difference. And those are the ones that by and large still think LLMs are bad at generating code where quality (reliability, sustainability, security, etc) matters. Everyone admits that LLMs are good for low stakes code.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#252

Post by bagacrap »

edfletcher_t137 wrote: post #151
simonw wrote: post #16

"LLM evangelists - are you willing to admit that you just might not be that good at programming computers?" No.

Came here to comment on this line: it completely changes the tone of the article. It's fairly reasonable and neutral until we get here, upon which the antagonism is jarringly clear. In fact I would posit this is the central crux of the post: OP does not believe those LLM evangelists were ever good programmers. As others have already noted[1], many well-known excellent programmers - including yourself! and now even Li…

"insecure" in the title didn't set the tone for you?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#253

Post by bagacrap »

simonw wrote: post #71
frizlab wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, LLM evangelists will not be willing to admit this in general, or no, you, as an LLM evangelist, are not not willing to admit this?

The second.

Ok, then as a self described LLM evangelist, what motivates you to preach about LLM coding instead of just, y'know, doing it in private?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#254

Post by bagacrap »

bicepjai wrote: post #214

I think the author slips into the same pattern he’s criticizing. He says LLM fans shouldn’t label skeptics as “afraid” then he turns around and labels the fans as “insecure” or “not very good at programming.” It’s the same move; guessing what’s going on in someone’s head instead of sticking to what actually happened and what the tools can or can’t do. The simpler truth is LLMs are great in some cases and painful in o…

It's not fans that he's criticizing but evangelists.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#255

Post by bagacrap »

arnabgho wrote: post #53

"LLM evangelists - are you willing to admit that you just might not be that good at programming computers?" The people who were the best at something don't necessarily be the best at a new paradigm. Unlearning some principles and learning new ones might be painful exercise for some masters. Military history has shown that the masters of the new wave are not necessarily the masters of the previous wave we see the rise…

Is that a long winded way of saying yes?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#256

Post by senordevnyc »

bagacrap wrote: post #253
simonw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second.

Ok, then as a self described LLM evangelist, what motivates you to preach about LLM coding instead of just, y'know, doing it in private?

Probably some of the same things that have always motivated people to explore and then write about their findings for others.

Do you mind when people do this about topics you find interesting? If not, why are you even on HN?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#258

Post by bagacrap »

ymyms wrote: post #13

"I find LLMs useful as a sort of digital clerk - searching the web for me, finding documentation, looking up algorithms. I even find them useful1 in a limited coding capacity; with a small context and clear guidelines." I am curious why the author doesn't think this saves them time (i.e. makes them more productive). I never had terribly high output as a programmer. I certainly think LLMs have helped increased the amo…

See for some, "over time" means "the next guy's problem". That is true before LLMs of course. And that's even the prevailing school of thought in most organizations. And to some extent it is correct to accept some tech debt because otherwise you'll never get anything done.

For those who have been around a while, dealing with the "over time" of yesteryear is a daily occurrence. So naturally they are more averse to it. And LLMs seem to dramatically shorten the duration of "over time".

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#259

Post by senordevnyc »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #188
meowface wrote: post #23

I feel no strong need to convince others. I've been seeing major productivity boosts for myself and others since Sonnet 3.5. Maybe for certain kinds of projects and use cases it's less good, maybe they're not using it well; I dunno. I do think a lot of these people probably will be left behind if they don't adopt it within the next 3 years, but that's not really my problem.

> " ...these people probably will be left behind if they don't adopt it... " And there it is, the insecure evangelism.

I'm not sure you understand what insecure means. Do you think it means people aren't able to have an opinion about other people's skills, values, attitudes, and behaviors, and what those might ultimately result in?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#260

Post by bagacrap »

I generally agree with this article and appreciate the articulation of some points that were in my head but not well formed.

That said, practically speaking, you can just ignore the evangelists and even use it as a signal for people you should ignore.

The unfortunate thing is how it's affecting our careers, since it's apparently so alluring for Management types to buy the hype and start trying to micro manage devs.

Post reply on HN