401–410 of 552 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't make a point, they asked a question. Sometimes people do still ask questions because they're interested in the answer.
It was clearly rhetorical
The commits are revealing. Look at this one: > Ask Claude to remove the "backup" encryption key. Clearly it is still important to security-review Claude's code! > prompt: I noticed you are storing a "backup" of the encryption key as `encryptionKeyJwk`. Doesn't this backup defeat the end-to-end encryption, because the key is available in the grant record without needing any token to unwrap it? I don’t think a non-expe…
That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other day I was working on a prototype and let claude write code for a auth flow. Everything was good until the last step where it was just sending the user id as a string with the valid token. So if you got a valid token you could just pass in any user id and become…
It's a lie. The marketing one, to be specific, which makes it even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other day I was working on a prototype and let claude write code for a auth flow. Everything was good until the last step where it was just sending the user id as a string with the valid token. So if you got a valid token you could just pass in any user id and become…
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. In my experience, it takes longer to debug/instruct the LLM than to write it from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how LLM:s should be used today. An expert prompts it and checks the code. Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. Just the other day I was working on a prototype and let claude write code for a auth flow. Everything was good until the last step where it was just sending the user id as a string with the valid token. So if you got a valid token you could just pass in any user id and become…
> ... Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch ... how ? the prompts have still to be typed right ? and then the output examined in earnest.
The commits are revealing. Look at this one: > Ask Claude to remove the "backup" encryption key. Clearly it is still important to security-review Claude's code! > prompt: I noticed you are storing a "backup" of the encryption key as `encryptionKeyJwk`. Doesn't this backup defeat the end-to-end encryption, because the key is available in the grant record without needing any token to unwrap it? I don’t think a non-expe…
It's a Jr Developer that you have to check all their code over. To some people that is useful. But you're still going to have to train Jr Developers so they can turn into Sr Developers.
Hello Cloudflare, impressive result, I did not think things were this advanced. Still, legal question where I'd like to be wrong: AFAIK (and IANAL) if I use AI to generate images, I can't attach copyright to it. But the code here is clearly copyrighted to you. Is that possible because you manually modify the code? How does it work in examples like this one where you try to have close to all code generated by AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch. In my experience, it takes longer to debug/instruct the LLM than to write it from scratch.
Depends on what you're doing. For example when you're writing something like React components and using something like Tailwind for styling, I find the speedup is close to 10X.
I mean I try to use them for svelte or vue and it still recommends react snippets sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert. As an offline database of Google-tier knowledge, LLM's are useful. Though current LLM tech is half-baked, we need: a) Cheap commodity hardware for running your own models locally. (And by "locally" I mean separate dedicated devices, not something that fights over your desktop's or laptop's…
> No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.
(I'll assume you're not joking, because your post is ridiculous enough to look like sarcasm.)
The answer is because programmers read code 10 times more (and think about code 100 times more) than they write it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still saves a lot of time vs typing everything from scratch No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert. As an offline database of Google-tier knowledge, LLM's are useful. Though current LLM tech is half-baked, we need: a) Cheap commodity hardware for running your own models locally. (And by "locally" I mean separate dedicated devices, not something that fights over your desktop's or laptop's…
> No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.
In less than 5 minutes Claude created code that: - encapsulated the api call - modeled the api response using Typescript - created a re-usable and responsive ui component for the card (including a load state) - included it in the right part of the page
Even if I typed at 200wpm I couldn't produce that much code from such a simple prompt.
I also had similar experiences/gains refactoring back-end code.
This being said, there are cases in which writing the code yourself is faster than writing a detailed enough prompt, BUT those cases are becoming exception with new LLM iteration. I noticed that after the jump from Claude 3.7 to Claude 4 my prompts can be way less technical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No it doesn't. Typing speed is never the bottleneck for an expert How could that possibly be true!? Seems like it'd be the same as suggesting being constrained to analog writing utensils wouldn't bottleneck the process of publishing a book or research paper. At the very least such a statement implies that people with ADHD can't be experts.
> How could that possibly be true!? (I'll assume you're not joking, because your post is ridiculous enough to look like sarcasm.) The answer is because programmers read code 10 times more (and think about code 100 times more) than they write it.
How many times have you read a story card and by the time you finished reading it you thought "It's an easy task, should take me 1 hour of work to write the code and tests"?
In my experience, in most of those cases the AI can do the same amount of code writing in under 10 minutes, leaving me the other 50 minutes to review the code, make/ask for any necessary adjustments, and move on to another task.