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

Human coders are still better than LLMs

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 762 posts

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#751

Post by [deleted] »

gitaarik wrote: post #749
JoshCole wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess engines cannot see like a human can. When they think they don't necessarily think using the exact same method that a human uses. Yet train a chess engine for a very long time and it can actually end up understanding chess better than a human can. I do understand the points you are attempting to make. The reason you're failing to prove your point is not because I am failing to understand the thrust of what you w…

Well chess has a very limited set of rules and playing field. And the way to win in chess is to be able to think forward, how all the moves could play out, and pick the best one. This is relatively easy to create an algorithm for that surpasses humans. That is what computers are good at: executing specific algorithms very fast. A computer will always beat a human to that. So such algorithms can replace certain functi…

[deleted]

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#752

Post by twodave »

npteljes wrote: post #750
twodave wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, today I can tell my manager when someone sucks at their job, and if enough other people are saying the same thing then that engineer will either be given help so they stop sucking or be fired so they don’t subtract from the team. Because this happens fairly often I wouldn’t want to add a lot of friction to that process. Idk, maybe you can protect people from being laid off without also complicating performance-ba…

How does a union have an effect on what you described? Can't a union worker not be fired for poor performance?

Unions make it harder because you actually have to document the poor performance in order to show you’re complying with the rules. It effectively makes the cost of firing (and thus, hiring) higher.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#753

Post by elzbardico »

Fernicia wrote: post #135
elzbardico wrote: post #129

I use LLMs a lot, and call me arrogant, but every time I see a developer saying that LLMs will substitute them, I think they are probably shitty developers.

If it automates 1/5th of your work, then what's unreasonable about thinking that your team could be 4 developers instead of 5?

Because I've never seen a time saver in software development not being used to write even more software than what should be allowed by the time saving itself.

So, yes, it could happen, I foresee a steep road ahead for junior developers, but if history can serve as a guide, LLMs coding will more likely lead to MORE CODE, not LESS CODERS in general.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#754

Post by SKILNER »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #707
SKILNER wrote: post #427

There's a lot of resistance to AI amongst the people in this discussion, which is probably to be expected. A chunk of the objections indicate people trying to shoehorn in their old way of thinking and working. I think you have to experiment and develop some new approaches to remove the friction and get the benefit.

> I think you have to experiment and develop some new approaches to remove the friction and get the benefit. What benefit to me? If I'm 50% more productive using AI that's great for my employer, but what do I get out of it? I get to continue to be employed? I already had that before AI So what do I get out of this, exactly?

You get to keep your job instead of being replaced by someone willing to use the latest tools.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#755

Post by Jolter »

allturtles wrote: post #161
Jolter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the deal: if you won’t write your replacement, a competitor will do it and outprice your employer. Either way you’re out of a job. May be more prudent to adapt to the new tools and master them rather than be left behind? Do you want to be a jobless weaver, or an engineer building mechanical looms for a higher pay than the weaver got?

I think it's the wrong analogy. The prompt engineer who uses the AI to make code maps to the poorly-paid, low-skill power loom machine tender. The "engineer" is the person who created the model. But it's also not totally clear to me that we'll need humans for that either, in the near future.

Still, the loom tending engineer got paid better than the weaver. Well, my prejudice says he did, don’t actually have the historical facts.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#756

Post by careful_ai »

This post is a brilliant example of why human intuition still dominates when navigating ambiguity and crafting clever systems-level solutions. The XOR accumulator idea was smart—LLMs can help validate or iterate on such thoughts, but rarely originate them.

In my experience working on enterprise app modernization, we’ve found success by keeping humans firmly in the loop. Tools like Project Analyzer (from Techolution’s AppMod.AI suite) assist engineers in identifying risky legacy code, mapping dependencies, and prioritizing refactors. But the judgment calls, architecture tweaks, and creative problem-solving? Still very much a human job.

LLMs boost productivity, but it’s the developer's thinking that makes the outcome truly resilient. This story captures that balance perfectly.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#757

Post by asdff »

twodave wrote: post #752
npteljes wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a union have an effect on what you described? Can't a union worker not be fired for poor performance?

Unions make it harder because you actually have to document the poor performance in order to show you’re complying with the rules. It effectively makes the cost of firing (and thus, hiring) higher.

Seems that aiming twice and shooting once is a good thing when the cost of a miss is destabilizing someones entire personal life for their entire family potentially

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#758

Post by npteljes »

asdff wrote: post #757
twodave wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions make it harder because you actually have to document the poor performance in order to show you’re complying with the rules. It effectively makes the cost of firing (and thus, hiring) higher.

Seems that aiming twice and shooting once is a good thing when the cost of a miss is destabilizing someones entire personal life for their entire family potentially

I fail to see the issue with that as well.

The sentiment I often see online is that "fewer rules = more freedom". And as I grew more experienced, I find that the opposite is true. In a lot of cases, freedom is upheld by the rules themselves. And this is not an orwellian "war is peace" kind of thing, but rather a GNU Free Software kind of thing, where the perpetuity of the freedom is guaranteed with the rules of participation.

I think that this discussion went in the same direction with the unions. But, of course, freedom in itself can have different interpretations for different people.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#759

Post by npteljes »

dughnut wrote: post #412
asdff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does when it is called unionizing, however for some reason software developers have a mental block towards the concept.

The reason might be that union members give a percentage of their income to a governing body which is barely distinct from organized crime in which they have no say in. The federal government already exists. You really want more boots on your neck?

I kinda agree with you, more boots is not really an ideal way to achieve this. Worker protections should come from the government itself, so much so that there is no need to form unions, like how it is at many places in Europe. I don't see how that could be created in the US though. I think trade unions are more their vibe - or not even that, of course, like in case with you. And of course, in US history we can see how some organization grow and get a life on their own, like the NRA. Not necessarily remaining on the path to protect past principles, or the welfare of the people.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#760

Post by codr7 »

sanderjd wrote: post #724
codr7 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until they're not there anymore, that's when you realize what you sacrificed.

Does this apply to other services I use? Should I avoid using Google because when it's not there anymore I'll realize what I've sacrificed?

Not the same thing.

Using Google to find an answer is convenient, and I'm sure you would miss it.

But telling a machine to think for you outsources everything, once it's gone you have nothing left.

Post reply on HN