← Back to context

Comment by fweimer

3 hours ago

> If an LLM is typing that code - and it can maintain a test suite that shows everything works correctly - maybe we don't need that abstraction after all.

I'm worried that there is a tendency in LLM-generated code to avoid even local abstractions, such as putting common code into separate (local functions), and even use records/structures. You end up with code that is best maintained with an LLM, which is good for the LLM provider and their future revenue. But we humans as reviewers and ultimate long-term maintainers benefit from those minor abstractions.

Yeah, I find myself needing to watch out for that. I'll frequently say "refactor that to reduce duplicated code" - which is generally very safe once the LLM has added test coverage for the new feature.