| ▲ | rootnod3 4 days ago |
| In that case, LLMs are full on debt-machines. |
|
| ▲ | threecheese 4 days ago | parent [-] |
| Ones that can remediate it though. If I am capable of safely refactoring 1,000 copies of a method, in a codebase that humans don’t look at, did it really matter if the workload functions as designed? |
| |
| ▲ | sdenton4 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Jeebus, 'safely' is carrying a hell of a lot of water there... | |
| ▲ | JustExAWS 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In a type safe language like C# or Java, why could you need an LLM for that? it’s a standard guaranteed safe (as long as you aren’t using reflection) refactor with ReSharper. | |
| ▲ | uoaei 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Features present in all IDEs over the last 5 years or so are better and more verifiably correct for this task than probabilistic text generators. |
|
