[AdieuToLogic]

> LLMs can read and write change logs just as well as humans can (LLMs need change logs to do updates, you can't just give it a changed dependency and expect the LLM to pick up on the change, it isn't a code generator). Actually, this is my current project, since a Dev AI pipeline needs to read and write change logs to be effective (when something changes, you can't just transmit the changed artifact, you need to transmit a summary of the change as well). And again, this is serious software engineering, not vibecoding.

This is the important part of the post to which you replied and remains unaddressed:

  The difference is that there is an engineer in the middle 
  who can judge if the important information is provided or 
  not as input.

[seanmcdirmid]

The engineer decide what information to use as input to the update prompt. They don’t need to be in the middle of anything, it’s basically the level they are coding at.

[AdieuToLogic]

> The engineer decide what information to use as input to the update prompt. They don’t need to be in the middle of anything, it’s basically the level they are coding at.

LLMs do not possess the ability to "judge if the important information is provided or not as input" as it pertains to the question originally posed:

  How is that different from how it worked without LLMs?

Working without LLMs involves people communicating, hence the existence of "an engineer in the middle", where middle is defined as between stakeholder requirement definition and asset creation.

[seanmcdirmid]

So you engineer the prompt. I’m still confused what the problem is, I’ve already stated that I’m not talking about vibe coding where the LLM somehow magically figures out relevant information on their own.

[AdieuToLogic]

> So you engineer the prompt. I’m still confused what the problem is ...

The problem is stakeholders are people and they define what problems are needed to be solved. For those tasked to do so requires understanding of the given problems. Tooling (such as LLMs) does not possess this type of understanding as it is intrinsic to the stakeholders (people) whom have defined it. Tools can contribute to delivering a solution, sure, but have no capability to autonomously do so.

For example, consider commercial dish washing machines many restaurants use.

They sanitize faster and with greater cleanliness than manual dish washing once did. Still, there is no dish washing machine which understands why it must be used instead of not. Of course, restaurant stakeholders such as health inspectors and proprietors understand why they must be used.

As far as the commercial dish washer is concerned, it could just as easily be tasked with cleaning dining utensils as it could recycled car parts.