[_pdp_]

Yep.

I would argue that any sufficiently large system reaches a point where more code is in fact the opposite of what it needs.

Nutrition and calories are only useful up-to a point and then we have diminishing and later on negative returns.

Even-tough it is not the best analogy because we are describing two different system, it helps put a mental model around the fact that churning more is often less.

Side Note: A got a feedback from a customer today that while our documentation is complete and very detailed, they find it to be too overwhelming. It turns out having a few bullet points to get the idea across it better than 5 page document. Now it is obvious.

[WorldMaker]

> I would argue that any sufficiently large system reaches a point where more code is in fact the opposite of what it needs.

I have absolutely worked on code bases I would describe as "marbleized bricks" where the best thing I can do is carve out the statue they already contain. There's a great satisfaction in making PRs that mostly delete things, but the later result is a program that works faster, has fewer bugs/edge cases, is easier for the next person to debug.

The LLMs certainly can add more layers of marble. Companies don't often know how much more they need an artist with sculpting tools more than a bricklayer.

[razodactyl]

Seeing this too. Machines are great at pumping out content.

Tl;dr's, quick references / QuickStarts / cheat sheets and FAQs are also some things they're great at generating.

[yetihehe]

Like in that comic strip[0], where one side uses AI to inflate his bullet points to make it look better and have more content in the email, then other side uses AI to summarize it to bullet points.

[0] https://marketoonist.com/2023/03/ai-written-ai-read.html

[2ndorderthought]

This happens a probably a billion times a day. I shudder to think of the cost of it. Especially after knowing how LLMs aren't great at summarizing nor are they flawless at expanding information