> I think the real divide is over quality and standards.

I think there are multiple dimensions that people fall on regarding the issue and it's leading to a divide based on where everyone falls on those dimensions.

Quality and standards are probably in there but I think risk-tolerance/aversion could be behind some how you look at quality and standards. If you're high on risk-taking, you might be more likely to forego verifying all LLM-generated code, whereas if you're very risk-averse, you're going to want to go over every line of code to make sure it works just right for fear of anything blowing up.

Desire for control is probably related, too. If you desire more control in how something is achieved, you probably aren't going to like a machine doing a lot of the thinking for you.

▲

bandrami 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This. My aversion to LLMs is much more that I have low risk tolerance and the tails of the distribution are not well-known at this point. I'm more than happy to let others step on the land mines for me and see if there's better understanding in a year or two.

▲

XenophileJKO 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think there is more to it than that.

I am a high quality/craftsmanship person. I like coding and puzzling. I am highly skilled in functional leaning object oriented deconstruction and systems design. I'm also pretty risk averse.

I also have always believed that you should always be "sharpening your axe". For things like Java delelopment or things where I couldn't use a concise syntax would make extensive use of dynamic templating in my IDE. Want a builder pattern, bam, auto-generated.

Now when LLMs came out they really took this to another level. I'm still working on the problems.. even when I'm not writing the lines of code. I'm decomposing the problems.. I'm looking at (or now debating with the AI) what is the best algorithm for something.

It is incredibly powerful.. and I still care about the structure.. I still care about the "flow" of the code.. how the seams line up. I still care about how extensible and flexible it is for extension (based on where I think the business or problem is going).

At the same time.. I definately can tell you, I don't like migrating projects from Tensorflow v.X to Tenserflow v.Y.

	▲	skydhash 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm looking at (or now debating with the AI) what is the best algorithm for something. That line always makes me laugh. There’s only 2 points of an algorithm, domain correctness and technical performance. For the first, you need to step out of the code. And for the second you need proofs. Not sure what is there to debate about.

▲

aleph_minus_one an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's a little bit more complicated.

I, for example, would claim to be rather risk-tolerant, but I (typically) don't like AI-generated code.

The solution to the paradox this creates if one considers the model of your post is simple:

- I deeply love highly elegant code, which the AI models do not generate.

- I cannot stand people (and AIs) bullshitting me; this makes me furious. I thus have an insanely low tolerance for conmen (and conwomen and conAIs).