• geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Based. But the AI slop machine is something to be aware of. AI can get you 90% of the way there nowadays but without the remaining 10% error checking you’re not gonna have a good time.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’d argue it’s more than 10% checking. You really do have to be engaged in the process, and you can’t farm out thinking to the LLM. It’s a great tool for generating code, but you have to be making conscious decisions at the developer. My process has been to come up with a step by step plan, where there are clear and focused deliverables at each stage, and then do commits for each one and review the diff. This way I have a clear context of what the task is doing, and a reasonable amount of code I can read through to do a proper code review. And it’s easy to actually test the functionality out to see that it’s working. If you take this approach, then the tool really can save you a lot of time.

      • Ftumch@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, my impression is that LLMs are okay at writing code, but not good at software architecture.

        It’s an advanced autocomplete, not something that can think, at least not on the level that humans do.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yup, and as you mentioned in another comment, this tech is being marketed as something that it’s not because companies pushing it want to convince other companies that it will replace human labor.