By lines of code, almost by an order of magnitude.
Some of the code is janky garbage, but that’s what most code it. There’s no use pearl clutching.
Human engineering time is better spent at figuring out which problems to solve than typing code token by token.
Identifying what to work on, and why, is a great research skill to have and I’m glad we are getting to realistic technology to make that a baseline skill.
By lines of code produced in total? Probably true. By usefulness? Unclear.
Replace _is_ with _can be_ and I think the general point still stands.
Sounds like just as big an assumption.
Replacing “is” with “can be” is in practical terms the same thing as replacing “is” with “isn’t”
By lines of code, almost by an order of magnitude.
Some of the code is janky garbage, but that’s what most code it. There’s no use pearl clutching.
Human engineering time is better spent at figuring out which problems to solve than typing code token by token.
Identifying what to work on, and why, is a great research skill to have and I’m glad we are getting to realistic technology to make that a baseline skill.
Well, you will somehow have to turn that 'janky garbage' into quality code, who will do that then?
You don't really have to.
For most code, this never happens in the real world.
The vast majority of code is garbage, and has been for several decades.
5 replies →
> who will do that then?
the next version of LLMs. write with GPT 5.2 now, improve the quality using 5.3 in a couple months; best of both worlds.