Humans are just better at communicating about their process. They will spend hours talking over architectural decisions, implementation issues, writing technical details in commit messages and issue notes, and in this way they not only debug their decisions but socialize knowledge of both the code and the reasons it came to be that way. Communication and collaboration are the real adaptive skills of our species. To the extent AI can aid in those, it will be useful. To the extent it goes off and does everything in a silo, it will ultimately be ignored - much like many developers who attempt this.

I do think the primary strengths of genai are more in comprehension and troubleshooting than generating code - so far. These activities play into the collaboration and communication narrative. I would not trust an AI to clean up cruft or refactor a codebase unsupervised. Even if it did an excellent job, who would really know?

▲

crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Humans are just better at communicating about their process.

I wish that were true.

In my experience, most of the time they're not doing the things you talk about -- major architectural decisions don't get documented anywhere, commit messages give no "why", and the people who the knowledge got socialized to in unrecorded conversations then left the company.

If anything, LLM's seem to be far more consistent in documenting the rationales for design decisions, leaving clear comments in code and commit messages, etc. if you ask them to.

Unfortunately, humans generally are not better at communicating about their process, in my experience. Most engineers I know enjoy writing code, and hate documenting what they're doing. Git and issue-tracking have helped somewhat, but it's still very often about the "what" and not the "why this way".

▲

recitedropper 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"major architectural decisions don't get documented anywhere" "commit messages give no "why""

This is so far outside of common industry practices that I don't think your sentiment generalizes. Or perhaps your expectation of what should go in a single commit message is different from the rest of us...

LLMs, especially those with reasoning chains, are notoriously bad at explaining their thought process. This isn't vibes, it is empiricism: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04388

If you are genuinely working somewhere where the people around you are worse than LLMs at explaining and documenting their thought process, I would looking elsewhere. Can't imagine that is good for one's own development (or sanity).

▲

crazygringo an hour ago | parent [-]

I've worked everywhere from small startups to megacorps. The megacorps certainly do better with things like initial design documents that startups often skip entirely, but even then they're often largely out-of-date because nobody updates them. I can guarantee you that I am talking about common industry practices in consumer-facing apps.

I'm not really interested in what some academic paper has to say -- I use LLM's daily and see first-hand the quality of the documentation and explanations they produce.

I don't think there's any question that, as a general rule, LLM's do a much better job documenting what they're doing, and making it easy for people to read their code, with copious comments explaining what the code is doing and why. Engineers, on the other hand, have lots of competing priorities -- even when they want to document more, the thing needs to be shipped yesterday.

	▲	recitedropper an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Alright, I'm glad to hear you've had a successful and rich professional career. We definitely agree that engineers generally fail to document when they have competing priorities, and that LLMs can be of use to help offload some of that work successfully. Your initial comment made it sound like you were commenting on a genuine apples-for-apples comparisons between humans and LLMs, in a controlled setting. That's the place for empiricism, and I think dismissing studies examining such situations is a mistake. A good warning flag for why that is a mistake is the recent article that showed engineers estimated LLMs sped them up by like 24%, but when measured they were actually slower by 17%. One should always examine whether or not the specifics of the study really applies to them--there is no "end all be all" in empiricism--but when in doubt the scientific method is our primary tool for determining what is actually going on. But we can just vibe it lol. Fwiw, the parent comment's claims line up more with my experience than yours. Leave an agent running for "hours" (as specified in the comment) coming up with architectural choices, ask it to document all of it, and then come back and see it is a massive mess. I have yet to have a colleague do that, without reaching out and saying "help I'm out of my depth".