[SCdF]

Is this not a bash script, but run through a "maybe it won't work this time" randomizer?

Sometimes I feel like I live on another planet. Wouldn't you at least get Claude to write the bash script, confirm it works how you like, then run that? Why get an LLM to guess how to do it each and every time?

At least they are still manually approving, which the title made sound like something they'd move on from.

[alanfranz]

We're moving fast from "we do this with AI because it's useful" to "we do this with AI because it's cool despite the fact that it's slower, more expensive, and non-deterministic"

It's like the "we made over our product in order to use technology X because it's cool and modern" that we've seen multiple times with node, go, rust, k8s, blockchain, <enter technology here>.

[NekkoDroid]

> non-deterministic

Counterpoint: temperature = 0 /s

On a more serious note: I personally only found LLMs really interesting to double check my code if there might be something I overlooked in the general implementation (a different approach or so), never really for it to write code directly for me. I feel like this is just becoming less and less common nowadays and it kinda makes me worry for the quality of code that was already questionable at times...

[mchonedev]

I know you used the /s but it's quite common that 0 temperature is believed to be deterministic. For others coming across this thread, it's not deterministic, it is simply less likely to return different tokens (it still absolutely will)

[lostmsu]

AFAIK it shouldn't.

[tarsinge]

You are not the target. This is marketing content for their tool, aimed at semi technical people with buying power but not actual developers.

[alanfranz]

Oh, it is now flagged. I admit I didn't notice that was marketing content, I thought it was a genuine blogpost.

[blahgeek]

And the bash script would be shorter and easier to write than the prompt.