[weatherlite]

> Either you need to understand how your codebase works or you don’t.

It's an interesting point. We can also think about it perhaps as a non binary thing - you need X amount of understanding in a specific codebase to be effective. Even before LLMs in large codebases no one understood it all; but we at least mostly understood our own PRs and our own areas of expertise in the codebase.

[nevertoolate]

I have a very good mental model in my head of each and every codebase I have ever worked on. Nothing to do with my PRs or even my team’s direct responsibilities. I could always direct a thought provoking idea to challenge the existing status quo and get a reasonable nuanced answer from code owners on slack or during a water-cooler talk. I build that mental model also by reading the code. This is my job, so I know when to tear down what or how to respond to a random product idea immediately on a meeting to asses complexity.

[pydry]

Before LLMs you either built good abstractions to make it possible to not understand large chunks of the code base or you flailed.

A lot of the time people flailed.

The one thing Ive never seen an LLM do well is shape clean, coherent abstractions. To be fair it's a rare human skill as well but in LLMs if they don't have a direct analog in their training data they flail.

[danny_codes]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the code I get from LLMs would not be considered acceptable to merge before we collectively stopped having standards. People are committing 900 line functions with sprinkled return statements and it's getting into production. If there are productivity gains to be had I haven't seen them yet