|
|
|
|
|
|
by em-bee
26 days ago
|
|
|
but it's not fun for everyone. reviewing code for people vs agents is a massive difference for me. with people i can teach them. with LLMs i can't. it makes me feel helpless. just like i feel helpless using broken non-free apps. i can tolerate the same bugs in FOSS application, because i potentially can fix them even if i don't actually do it. i don't feel helpless, i feel like i have a choice. with LLMs i don't get that choice. most of the other things you mention feel tedious to me. i like diving into the code, understanding how to solve a problem, figuring out how to make the code structure look elegant and readable. find and comment on a clever short-cut, even if it means that i may not be clever enough to debug it later. i don't get any of that with LLM generated code. i'd spend more time to clean up and fix the LLM code than i would writing it from scratch. to use LLM code efficiently, i'd have to give up all that. but i don't want to do that. using LLM to code feels like gambling. every time i put in a prompt, its like rolling the dice. am i going to get a useful solution this time? and then reroll until i get a useful result rather than building up the application one step at a time. |
|
|
I personally draw the line at plugins that try to set up entire workflows and take the human completely out of the loop. Those are next to useless imo for an engineer who knows what they are doing and are exactly how you end up with crappy code/products.
But to give my thoughts to your points I guess I just don't really care that I can't teach LLMs? It doesn't bother me because I do also still teach people, it's not one or the other.
On what you like about coding. I like that too, I still do it where I want to or where it is needed.
I agree with you on what parts are enjoyable but I guess I don't feel that I'm giving them up? I get to pick the problems I work on that way now. The only disagreement there is around 'clever' shortcuts. I get pleasure out of making things debuggable and traceable for humans.
I wish my odds at gambling were as high as they are with LLM generated code lol.
I do run into the whole 'this session was a waste, need to restart', but like once in a blue moon? Not nearly enough to turn me off from using LLMs daily.
On the teaching point again, my learnings around coding standards, architecture -> problem mapping, how to debug, are applied at the system prompt level and around a few key skill files, so when I say "implement ..." or "I'm seeing this behavior, where in the codebase is the most likely root cause? Why?" It does so close to how I would've done it.
I cannot speak for people who are using these things raw in the harnesses provided by the companies, or god forbid in the browser but you can definitely increase the odds of a good roll enough to be productive by changing the environment around the llm and to me that is the opposite of feeling helpless when it comes to LLMs.
I feel enabled to get more done, at my standards, on my time.