Comment by em-bee

> What does it take to "earn your trust"?

multiple successful contributions of increasing complexity, among other things.

>> LLM contributions are non-deterministic, which means they can never be trusted.

> Provably incorrect. LLM contributions can be reviewed, tested, and understood like any other contribution. There's nothing "special" about LLM contributions.

read this comment to see what i mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47968180

> Contributions authored by human brains are also non-deterministic, perhaps if the author was feeling in a slightly different way they'd have formatted the code a bit differently.

i can tell a human to focus on a certain issue. they will either listen and follow my instructions, or i will reject their contribution. the LLM is almost guaranteed to not follow all my instructions and make changes i didn;t ask for. see my comment above.

>> therefore, if you use LLM to contribute, you can not earn my trust.

> The premise is wrong.

how so?

>> if you believe that you can not create a meaningful contribution without the use of LLM then you are realizing that you are not skilled enough to understand the code that you contribute

> What if I believe I can do so without an LLM, but that it could be even better with an LLM?

what you believe is not relevant. only what you can convince me of. you'll have to first show that you actually can work without an LLM before i will consider your contribution.

> What if I'm great at understanding code, but terrible at writing it?

your problem not mine. if you are terrible at writing code but good at understanding it then it's your choice to only do code reviews. you can still make a meaningful contribution that way. i'd even let you write code so you can practice that, but i am not interested in your LLM generated code.

> Again, this is a premise that you just decided to take as truth, without proof.

i don't need proof. i need trust. you need to convince me that your code can be trusted.

>> because if you could understand it, then you could write it yourself.

> False. I can understand a novel algorithm by reading and studying it, but perhaps I could have not come up with it myself.

that's called learning. once you learned it, you can write it. but in order to effectively learn you also have to practice. if you let LLM write all your code then you are not practicing, so you won't improve.

>> i want you to earn my trust by showing me that you understand what you are doing

> I can easily do that even if my contribution involves LLM assistance.

it depends on the level of assistance. i am not ruling out use of AI to do research and learn, just don't let it write the code for you.

>> i want you to grow your understanding of my project

>> none of this happens when you use LLMs

> False. Why do you think so?

as i said above, if you don't practice writing the code yourself you are not learning. not enough at least to satisfy my expectations.

>> if you are unable to make a contribution without the help of an LLM then you are not ready to contribute.

> Again, this is your opinion and you have no way of proving it. I can prove the opposite.

whether you are ready to contribute to my project or not is not something i need to prove. it is a choice based on my preference which depends on the amount of trust you have earned. you can not prove to me that you are ready to contribute. this is not a standardized test that if you pass you automatically qualify. you can only convince me by earning my trust. this is a human decision, based on feelings.