▲ | withinboredom 6 days ago | |||||||
"The best programmers are lazy, or more accurately, they work hard to be as lazy as possible." -- CS101, first day | ||||||||
▲ | K0balt 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
The most clever lines of code are the ones you don’t write. Often this is a matter of properly defining the problem in terms of data structure. LLMs are not at all good at seeing that a data structure is inside out and that by turning it right side in, we can fix half the problems. More significantly though, OP seems right on to me. The basic functionality of LLMs is handy for a code writing assistant, but does not replace a software engineer, and is not ever likely too no matter how many janky accessories we bolt on. LLMs are fundamentally semantic pattern matching engines, and are only problem solvers in the context of problems that are either explicitly or implicitly defined and solved in their training data. They will always require supervision because there is fundamentally no difference between a useful LLM output and a “hallucination” except the utility rating that a human judge applies to the output. LLMs are good at solving fully defined, fully solved problems. A lot of work falls into that category, but some does not. | ||||||||
|