Comment by bsenftner

6 months ago

> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI.

That's because using AI to write code is a poor application of LLM AIs. LLMs are better suited to summary, advice, and reflection than forced into a Rube Goldberg Machine. Use your favorite LLM as a Socratic advisor, but not as a coder, and certainly not as an unreliable worker.

The entire hype for LLMs is that they can *do* anything. Even if only writing code, that could justify their hype. If LLMs mean Grammarly is now a lot better (and offered by big tech) then it’ll be very disappointing (economically speaking)

  • I believe it was Flavor Flave that said: "Don't believe the hype", and the pretty much applies to everything humans do.

I support this comment. AI for coding does still involve much prodding and redirecting in my limited experience. Try getting Claude to produce even a simple SVG for a paper is a struggle in my experience.

But for helping me as a partner in neurophilosophy conversations Claude is unrivaled even compared to my neurophilosophy colleagues—speed and the responsivness is impossible to beat. LLMs are at pushing me to think harder. They provides the wall against which to bounce ideas, and those bounces often come from surprising and helpful angles.

It's absolutely hilarious reading all these "you're holding it wrong" arguments because every time I find one it contradicts the previous ones.

> That's because using AI to write code is a poor application of LLM AIs

Then why is that exact usecase being talked about ad nauseam by many many many "influencers", including "big names" in the industry? Why is that exact usecase then advertised by leading companies in the industry?

  • It probably has a lot to do with those writing the code are not those marketing the finished software, and between the two groups they do not communicate very well. Once marketing gets any idea momentum going, they will go for it, because they can sell it, and then make engineering pay that bill. Not their problem.

Agreed. That argument they made was a straw-man which doesn't really pertain to where LLMs are being leveraged today.

  • The claim that you made was "if you still don't see how LLMs is changing [the IT] industry, you haven't been paying attention." Pointing out that there is no visible evidence of that change in the industry you mentioned and inviting you to provide some where others have repeatedly failed is not attacking a strawman.