281–290 of 544 posts
Which is Fortuna's work... stochastic models are like that. And confirmation bias is another phenomenon as well as "how do LLMs align with my worldview" whether I see them more positively or more negatively.
> One thing I’ve noticed is that different people get wildly different results with LLMs, so I suspect there’s some element of how you’re talking to them that affects the results. It's always easier to blame the prompt and convince yourself that you have some sort of talent in how you talk to LLMs that other's don't. In my experience the differences are mostly in how the code produced by the LLM is reviewed. Develope…
This definitely is the case. I was talking to someone complaining about how llms don't work good. They said it couldn't fix an issue it made. I asked if they gave it any way to validate what it did. They did not, some people really are saying "fix this" instead of saying "x fn is doing y when someone makes a request to it. Please attempt to fix x and validate it by accessing the endpoint after and writing tests" Its…
It's not shocking. The tech world is telling them that "Claude will write all of their app easily" with zero instructions/guidelines so of course they're going to send prompts like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You did see the part about my unit, integration and scalability testing? The testing harness is what prevents the fragility. It doesn’t matter to AI whether the code is spaghetti code or not. What you said was only important when humans were maintaining the code. No human should ever be forced to look at the code behind my vibe coded internal admin portal that was created with straight Python, no frameworks, server s…
> It doesn’t matter to AI whether the code is spaghetti code or not. What you said was only important when humans were maintaining the code. In my experience using AI to work on existing systems, the AI definitely performs much better on code that humans would consider readable. You can’t really sit here talking about architecting greenfield systems with AI using methodology that didn’t exist 6 months ago while confi…
> One thing I’ve noticed is that different people get wildly different results with LLMs, so I suspect there’s some element of how you’re talking to them that affects the results. It's always easier to blame the prompt and convince yourself that you have some sort of talent in how you talk to LLMs that other's don't. In my experience the differences are mostly in how the code produced by the LLM is reviewed. Develope…
This definitely is the case. I was talking to someone complaining about how llms don't work good. They said it couldn't fix an issue it made. I asked if they gave it any way to validate what it did. They did not, some people really are saying "fix this" instead of saying "x fn is doing y when someone makes a request to it. Please attempt to fix x and validate it by accessing the endpoint after and writing tests" Its…
I randomly clicked and scrolled through the source code of Stavrobot - The largest thing I’ve built lately is an alternative to OpenClaw that focuses on security. [1] and that is not great code. I have not used any AI to write code yet but considered trying it out - is this the kind of code I should expect? Or maybe the other way around, has someone an example of some non-trivial code - in size and complexity - writt…
When you say "is not great code" can you elaborate? Does the code work or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only you understanding the how, but you not understanding the goal. I often use AI successfully, but in a few cases I had, it was bad. That was when I didn't even know the end goal and regularly switched the fundamental assumptions that the LLM tried to build up. One case was a simulation where I wanted to see some specific property in the convergence behavior, but I had no idea how it would get there in the dyna…
LLMs massively reduce the cost of "let's just try this". I think trying to migrate your entire repo is usually a fool's errand. Figure out a way to break the load-bearing part of the problem out into a sub-project, solve it there, iterate as much as you like. Claude can give you a test gui in one or two minutes, as often as you like. When you have it reliably working there, make Claude write up a detailed spec and br…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if when you delegate tasks to humans they are deterministic. I would hope that your test cases cover the requirements. If not, your implementation is just as brittle when other developers come online or even when you come back to a project after six months.
1. Agents aren’t humans. A human can write a working 100k LOC application with zero tests (not saying they should but they could and have). An agent cannot do this. Agents require tests to keep them from spinning out and your tests do not cover all of the behaviors you care about. 2. If you doubt that your tests don’t cover all your requirements, 99.9% of every production bug you’ve ever had completely passed your te…
So humans also don’t write bug free code or tests that cover all use cases - how is that an argument that humans are better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This definitely is the case. I was talking to someone complaining about how llms don't work good. They said it couldn't fix an issue it made. I asked if they gave it any way to validate what it did. They did not, some people really are saying "fix this" instead of saying "x fn is doing y when someone makes a request to it. Please attempt to fix x and validate it by accessing the endpoint after and writing tests" Its…
> Its shocking some people don't give it any real instruction or way to check itself. It's not shocking. The tech world is telling them that "Claude will write all of their app easily" with zero instructions/guidelines so of course they're going to send prompts like that.