Comment by stavros
5 days ago
Eeeh, the LLM wouldn't have done it correctly, though. I use LLMs exclusively for programming these days, and you really need to tell them the architecture and how to implement the features, and then review the output, otherwise it'll be wrong.
They are like an overeager junior, they know how to write the code but they don't know how to architect the systems or to avoid bugs. Just today I suspected something, asked the LLM to critique its own code, paying attention to X Y Z things, and it found a bunch of unused code and other brittleness. It fixed it, with my guidance, but yeah, you can't let your guard down.
Of course, as you say, these are the tools of the trade now, and we'll have to adapt, but they aren't a silver bullet.
> you can't let your guard down.
This is a nice way of putting it. And when the guard is tested or breached it’s time to add that item to the context files.
In that way, you are coding how you want coding to code.
> I use LLMs exclusively for programming these days
Meaning you no longer write any code directly, or that you no longer use LLMs other than for coding tasks?
Ah, I knew I should have disambiguated: I only program using LLMs.
Although this comment was presumabl ynot written by an LLM, it has the typical LLM trait of trying to correct the pointed out mistake while still being wrong.
4 replies →
Still ambiguous...
Ah. But do you only use LLMs to program?