{"id":43816573,"user":"tptacek","time":1745802614,"time_ago":"a day ago","type":"comment","content":"

I didn't say anything about "slapdash".","comments":[{"id":43822450,"user":"quesera","time":1745853497,"time_ago":"12 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Umm. Yeah, I think ya did. :)","comments":[{"id":43823035,"user":"tptacek","time":1745856583,"time_ago":"11 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

No.","comments":[{"id":43823279,"user":"quesera","time":1745857929,"time_ago":"10 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

You introduced the word into the thread. I quoted you.

Unless you're operating at some notational level above the literal, yes I think you did.","comments":[{"id":43823595,"user":"tptacek","time":1745859766,"time_ago":"10 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Sorry, I was referring the the prompt, not the code.","comments":[{"id":43824045,"user":"quesera","time":1745862398,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I was referring to the prompt/prose as well.

The median-quality code just doesn't seem like a valuable asset en route to final product, but I guess it's a matter of process at that point.

Generative AI, as I've managed to use it, brings me to a place in the software lifecycle that I don't want to be. Median-quality code that lacks the context or polish needed to be usable. Or in some cases even parseable.

I may be missing essential details though. Smart people are getting more out of AI than I am. I'd love to see a Youtube/Twitch/etc video of someone who knows what they're doing demoing the build of a typical TODO app or similar, from paragraphs to product.","comments":[{"id":43824138,"user":"tptacek","time":1745862993,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Median-quality code is extraordinarily valuable. It is most of the load-bearing code people actually ship. What's almost certainly happening here is that you and I have differing definitions of "median-quality" commercial code.

I'm pretty sure that if we triangle-tested (say) a Go project from 'jerf and Gemini 2.5 Go output for the same (substantial; say, 2,000 lines) project --- not whatever Gemini's initial spew is, but a final product where Gemini is the author of 80+% of the lines --- you would not be able to pick the human code out from the LLM code.","comments":[{"id":43824326,"user":"quesera","time":1745864138,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

This is probably true. I'm using your "median-quality" label, but that would be a generous description of the code I'm getting from LLMs.

I'm getting median-quality junior code. If you're getting median-quality commercial code, then you are speaking better LLMish than I.","comments":[{"id":43824390,"user":"tptacek","time":1745864533,"time_ago":"9 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

A couple prompt/edit "cycles" into a Cursor project, Gemini's initial output gives me better-than-junior code, but still not code I would merge. But you review that code, spot the things you don't like (missed idioms, too much repetition, weird organization) and call them out; Gemini goes and fixes them. The result of that process is code that I would merge (or that would pass a code review).

What I feel like I keep seeing is people who see that initial LLM code "proposal", don't accept it (reasonably!), and end the process right there. But that's not how coding with an LLM works.","comments":[],"comments_count":0,"level":7,"url":"item?id=43824390"}],"comments_count":1,"level":6,"url":"item?id=43824326"}],"comments_count":2,"level":5,"url":"item?id=43824138"}],"comments_count":3,"level":4,"url":"item?id=43824045"}],"comments_count":4,"level":3,"url":"item?id=43823595"}],"comments_count":5,"level":2,"url":"item?id=43823279"}],"comments_count":6,"level":1,"url":"item?id=43823035"}],"comments_count":7,"level":0,"url":"item?id=43822450"}],"comments_count":8,"url":"item?id=43816573"}

Comment by tptacek