Live data from Hacker News

Human coders are still better than LLMs

antirez.com

1–10 of 762 posts

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#5
This matches my experience. I actually think a fair amount of value from LLM assistants to me is having a reasonably intelligent rubber duck to talk to. Now the duck can occasionally disagree and sometimes even refine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

I think the big question everyone wants to skip right to and past this conversation is, will this continue to be true 2 years from now? I don’t know how to answer that question.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#7
“Better” is always task-dependent. LLMs are already far better than me (and most devs I’d imagine) at rote things like getting CSS syntax right for a desired effect, or remembering the right way to invoke a popular library (e.g. fetch)

These little side quests used to eat a lot of my time and I’m happy to have a tool that can do these almost instantly.

Re: Human coders are still better than LLMs

#10
We aren't expecting LLMs to come up with incredibly creative software designs right now, we are expecting them to execute conventional best practices based on common patterns. So it makes sense to me that it would not excel at the task that it was given here.

The whole thing seems like a pretty good example of collaboration between human and LLM tools.

Post reply on HN