Comment by PunchyHamster
3 hours ago
> to "for this next step I need a vpn multiplexer written in a language I don't use"
but that acceleration is exactly because you're not good at that language
3 hours ago
> to "for this next step I need a vpn multiplexer written in a language I don't use"
but that acceleration is exactly because you're not good at that language
Can't we reach a compromise where proven track record of good use of LLM by a contributor or a company (eg. Bun) be pre-approved or entertained? Blanket ban on a new technology shouldn't be the default option.
Certainly not in the case of asking it to do something you'd be slow at because you are unfamiliar. If you are not familiar enough with the system, how are you confident that what the LLM has produced is valid and complete? IMO the people saying LLMs make then 10x faster were either very bad to start with (like me!) or are not properly looking at the results before throwing them over the wall.
And how do you know if that is the case or the person/team using the LLMs is one of the good ones?
So the safest answer is just "no".
if they had a good track record, the current submission that led to this article damaged it.
i am reminded of this quote: it takes more cleverness to debug code than it takes to write it. if you write code as clever as you can, by definition you are not clever enough to debug it. using LLM makes your code many times more clever than what you could write yourself. which means by the same definition the code is to clever for you to understand or debug it.
No.