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

I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

blaines-blog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#41

Post by footy »

thomas_moon wrote: post #40
footy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all of this sounds awful

The whole point of my post is that you get to pick and choose what parts this magical software automates for you. Based on your response, it's an imagination issue for you.

I can imagine doing it and I have in fact used it to automate things like tests. This usually leads to me having to rewrite the tests and spending more time on them than I otherwise would have. Or delete tests that test trivial functionality, or add tests for x even when I specifically mentioned it in my prompt.

Being able to imagine something doesn't mean I have to like it.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#42

Post by lkey »

logicprog wrote: post #32
Refreeze5224 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then put me solidly in the Luddite camp. I think you should look into the history of the Luddites though. They were not against technology; they were against technology that destroyed jobs. AI is about destroying working-class jobs so that corporations and the owning class can profit. It's not about writing code or summarizing articles. Those are just things workers can do with it. That's not what it's actually for .…

> They were not against technology; they were against technology that destroyed jobs. They were not against technology; they were against technology that their destroyed jobs. If we had followed what they wanted, we'd still be in a semi pre industrial artisnal economy, and the worse off for it.

So you didn't read about them.

> In North West England, textile workers lacked these long-standing trade institutions and their letters composed an attempt to achieve recognition as a united body of tradespeople. As such, they were more likely to include petitions for governmental reforms, such as increased minimum wages and the cessation of child labor.

Sounds pretty modern doesn't it? unions, wages, no child-exploitation...

And the government response?

> Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#43

Post by capyba »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #37
capyba wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Productivity (measured by the number of lines of code produced) increased” The LLM’s better have written more code, they’re a text generation machine! In what world does this study prove that the LLM actually accomplished anything useful?

As expected, the goalposts are being moved. LOC does have a correlation with productivity, as much as devs hate to acknowledge it. I don’t care that you can provide counterexamples to this, or even if the AI on average takes more LOC to accomplish the same task - it still results in more productivity overall because it arrives at the result faster.

Nothing about this is moving goalposts - you and/or the person(s) conducting this study are the ones being misleading!

If you want to measure time to complete a complex task, then measure that. LOC is an intermediate measure. How much more productive is "55% more lines of code"?

I can write a bunch of garbage code really fast with a lot of bugs that doesn't work, or I can write a better program that works properly, slower. Under your framework, the former must be classified as 'better' - but why?

I read the study you reference and there is literally nothing in the study that talks about whether or not tasks were accomplished successfully.

It says: * Junior devs benefited more than senior devs, then presents a disingenuous argument as to why that's the senior devs' fault (more experienced employees are worse than less experienced employees, who knew?!) * 11% of the 55% increase in LOC was attributed directly to LLM output * Makes absolutely no attempt to measure whether or not the extra code was beneficial

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#44

Post by Our_Benefactors »

capyba wrote: post #43
Our_Benefactors wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As expected, the goalposts are being moved. LOC does have a correlation with productivity, as much as devs hate to acknowledge it. I don’t care that you can provide counterexamples to this, or even if the AI on average takes more LOC to accomplish the same task - it still results in more productivity overall because it arrives at the result faster.

Nothing about this is moving goalposts - you and/or the person(s) conducting this study are the ones being misleading! If you want to measure time to complete a complex task, then measure that. LOC is an intermediate measure. How much more productive is "55% more lines of code"? I can write a bunch of garbage code really fast with a lot of bugs that doesn't work, or I can write a better program that works properly, s…

Yes, like I said, it’s not hard to provide counterexamples to why more LOC is better, but it’s also missing the forest for the trees to pretend it doesn’t matter at all.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#45

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

footy wrote: post #41
thomas_moon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of my post is that you get to pick and choose what parts this magical software automates for you. Based on your response, it's an imagination issue for you.

I can imagine doing it and I have in fact used it to automate things like tests. This usually leads to me having to rewrite the tests and spending more time on them than I otherwise would have. Or delete tests that test trivial functionality, or add tests for x even when I specifically mentioned it in my prompt. Being able to imagine something doesn't mean I have to like it.

> or add tests for x even when I specifically mentioned it in my prompt

> Write the test names down and let the LLM implement them for you.

This sort of reinforces the idea I (and I believe others) have that people mostly talk past each other on this topic. It seems like there might be some other difference in understanding and/or practice when it comes to using these tools effectively. This seems to be a common issue to notice once one starts noticing it.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#46

Post by psunavy03 »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #38
psunavy03 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are seriously linking "productivity" to "lines of code produced," that says all about your credibility that I need to know.

Do you think LOC and program complexity are not correlated? You are arguing in bad faith.

Neither has anything to do with the effectiveness of a piece of software or the productivity of the people who created it.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#47

Post by snickerbockers »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #36
snickerbockers wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's superior data because it supports his expectations. His expectations are right because they are based on superior data. Checkmate Luddites.

Meanwhile, you have furnished zero data that supports your claims. Ho hum.

Your initial statement is that you are not open to debate so i don't see what the point would be. Furthermore you defined "serious inquiries" as synonymous with your own preconceived ideas so by definition I cannot refute anything you say using a "serious inquiry". Do not interpret this as some sort of complement or concession but it is not possible to argue against you.

Even putting the sophistry aside your argument is incomplete because you never defined what "productivity" means in this context or how it can be quantified. I would never dispute that a pseudo-random bullshit generator can shit out javascript faster than any human, but that's not necessarily productive.

Re: I Don't Want to Code with LLM's

#48

Post by Vaslo »

thomas_moon wrote: post #12

The only viewpoint I really agree with in this article is the "use it or lose it" mentality. Skills are developed and maintained by practicing them, but if all the author really wants to do is write code, then LLMs are literally an answer to their prayers! You can enable virtually free test driven development. Write the test names down and let the LLM implement them for you. You save 50% of your time and you get to g…

I feel like we are still using it when cleaning up the code that we often get I guess.
Post reply on HN