Perhaps consider that I still think coding by prompting is just another layer of abstraction on top of coding.

I'm my mind, writing the prompt that generates the code is somewhat analogous to writing the code that generates the assembly. (Albeit, more stochastically, the way psychology research might be analogous to biochemistry research).

Different experts are still required at different layers of abstraction, though. I don't find it depressing when people show preference for working at different levels of complexity / tooling, nor excitement about the emergence of new tools that can enable your creativity to build, automate, and research. I think scorn in any direction is vapid.

▲

layer8 3 days ago | parent [-]

One important reason people like to write code is that it has well-defined semantics, allowing to reason about it and predict its outcome with high precision. Likewise for changes that one makes to code. LLM prompting is the diametrical opposite of that.

▲

youoy 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It completely depends on the way you prompt the model. Nothing prevents you from telling it exactly what you want, to the level of specifying the files and lines to focus on. In my experience anything other than that is a recepy for failure in sufficiently complex projects.

	▲	layer8 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Several comments can be made here: (1) You only control what the LMM generates to the extent that you specify precisely what it should generate. You cannot reasons about what it will generate for what you don't specify. (2) Even for what you specify precisely, you don't actually have full control, because the LLM is not reliable in a way you can reason about. (3) The more you (have to) specify precisely what it should generate, the less benefit using the LLM has. After all, regular coding is just specifying everything precisely. The upshot is, you have to review everything the LLM generates, because you can't predict the qualities or failures of its output. (You cannot reason in advance about what qualities and failures it definitely will or will not exhibit.) This is different from, say, using a compiler, whose output you generally don't have to review, and whose input-to-output relation you can reason about with precision. Note: I'm not saying that using an LLM for coding is not workable. I'm saying that it lacks what people generally like about regular coding, namely the ability to reason with absolute precision about the relation between the input and the behavior of the output.

▲

yunwal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re still allowed to reason about the generated output. If it’s not what you want you can even reject it and write it yourself!

▲

palmotea 3 days ago | parent [-]

>> One important reason people like to write code is that it has well-defined semantics, allowing to reason about it and predict its outcome with high precision. Likewise for changes that one makes to code. LLM prompting is the diametrical opposite of that.

> You’re still allowed to reason about the generated output. If it’s not what you want you can even reject it and write it yourself!

You missed the key point. You can't predict and LLM's "outcome with high precision."

Looking at the output and evaluating it after the fact (like you describe) is an entirely different thing.

▲

yunwal 2 days ago | parent [-]

For many things you can though. If I ask an LLM to create an alert in terraform that triggers when 10% of requests fail over a 5 minute period and sends an email to some address, with the html on the email looking a certain way, it will do exactly the same as if I looked at the documentation, and figured out all of the fields 1 by 1. It’s just how it works when there’s one obvious way to do things. I know software devs love to romanticize about our jobs but I don’t know a single dev who writes 90% meaningful code. There’s always boilerplate. There’s always fussing with syntax you’re not quite familiar with. And I’m happy to have an AI do it

▲

palmotea 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're still missing the point. This cousin comment does a decent job of explaining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46231510

	▲	yunwal 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t think I am. To me, it doesn’t have to be precise. The code is precise and I am precise. If it gets me what I want most of the time, I’m ok with having to catch it.