[lelanthran]

> What if that process changes and the language you’re reading is a natural one instead of code?

Okay, when that happens, then sure, you don't need to understand the codebase.

I have not seen any evidence that that is currently the case, so my observation that "Continue letting the LLM write your code for you, and soon you won't be able to spot errors in its output" is still applicable today.

When the situation changes, then we can ask if it is really that improtant to understand the code. Until that happens, you still need to understand the code.

[kjksf]

The same logic applies to your statement:

> Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output.

Okay, when that happens, then sure, you'll have a problem.

I have not seen any evidence that that is currently the case i.e. I have no problems correcting LLM output when needed.

When the situation changes, then we can talk about pulling back on LLM usage.

And the crucial point is: me.

I'm not saying that everyone that uses LLM to generate code won't fall into "not able to use LLM generated code".

I now generate 90% of the code with LLM and I see no issues so far. Just implementing features faster. Fixing bugs faster.

[lelanthran]

> The same logic applies to your statement:

>> Do that enough and you won't know enough about your codebase to recognise errors in the LLM output.

> Okay, when that happens, then sure, you'll have a problem.

It's not exactly the same: how will you know that you are missing errors due to lack of knowledge?

> I now generate 90% of the code with LLM and I see no issues so far.

Well, that's my point, innit? "I see no errors" is exactly the same outcome from "missing the errors that are generated".

[pdimitar]

You do have a point but as the sibling comment pointed out, the negative eventuality you are describing also has not happened for many devs.

I quite enjoy being much more of an architect than I could compared to 90% of my career so far (24 years in total). I have coded my fingers and eyes out and I spot idiocies in LLM output from trivially easy to needing an hour carefully reviewing.

So, I don't see the "soon" in your statement happening, ahem, anytime soon for me, and for many others.

[lelanthran]

> I have coded my fingers and eyes out and I spot idiocies in LLM output from trivially easy to needing an hour carefully reviewing.

This is exactly the opposite experience of sibling, who reports not seeing any issues in the generated code.

You report spotting idiocies, he reports seeing nothing, and you are both making the same argument :-/

[pdimitar]

Not really. We are both reporting our own anecdotal evidence.

There are common threads though. LLMs do terribly in certain areas. They also do terribly when not supervised well.