> , it tests N(x) faster.

It does? You mean "it tests itself faster", which is not really a test now, is it?

I use one model for coding and another writing tests for that very reason. It’s surprisingly good at TDD

	▲	guille_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I find this fascinating because it's the sort of anthropomorphism that betrays a fundamental understanding of what an LLM is. Language models are not people. You can just achieve the same thing with a fresh context window. The only solid technical reason you'd want a different model is if you find a certain model produces better code and another produces better reviews. Nobody has really tested this, of course.

▲

kefirlife 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I read that to mean you can arm it with a harness that you design informing the user that tests pass. A LLM can leverage this to run tests faster than I would run the same harness myself. You can then have any programmatic logic needed to support that usage sufficient to cover your use case and have a degree of certainty that the product at least passed those tests.