Came here to say that. It’s important to remember how biased hacker news is in that regard. I’m just out of ten years in the safety critical market, and I can assure you that our clients are still a long way from being able to use those. I myself work in low level/runtime/compilers, and the output from AIs is often too erratic to be useful

▲

djeastm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>our clients are still a long way from being able to use those

So it's simply a matter of time

>often too erratic to be useful

So sometimes it is useful.

▲

layer8 4 days ago | parent [-]

Too erratic to be net useful.

▲

anuramat 4 days ago | parent [-]

Even for code reviews/test generation/documentation search?

▲

layer8 4 days ago | parent [-]

Documentation search I might agree, but that wasn’t really the context, I think. Code reviews is hit and miss, but maybe doesn’t hurt too much. They aren’t better at writing good tests than at writing good code in the first place.

	▲	anuramat 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> wasn't the context yeah, I'm just curious about the vibe in general > good tests are there any downsides to adding "bad tests" though? as long as you keep generated tests separate, it's basically free regression testing, and if something meaningfully breaks on a refactor, you can promote it to not-actually-slop

▲

OldfieldFund 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would say that the average Hacker News user is negatively biased against LLMs and does not use coding agents to their benefit. At least what I can tell from the highly upvoted articles and comments.