←back to thread

371 points ulrischa | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.576s | source
Show context
notepad0x90 ◴[] No.43236385[source]
My fear is that LLM generated code will look great to me, I won't understand it fully but it will work. But since I didn't author it, I wouldn't be great at finding bugs in it or logical flaws. Especially if you consider coding as piecing together things instead of implementing a well designed plan. Lots of pieces making up the whole picture but a lot of those pieces are now put there by an algorithm making educated guesses.

Perhaps I'm just not that great of a coder, but I do have lots of code where if someone took a look it, it might look crazy but it really is the best solution I could find. I'm concerned LLMs won't do that, they won't take risks a human would or understand the implications of a block of code beyond its application in that specific context.

Other times, I feel like I'm pretty good at figuring out things and struggling in a time-efficient manner before arriving at a solution. LLM generated code is neat but I still have to spend similar amounts of time, except now I'm doing more QA and clean up work instead of debugging and figuring out new solutions, which isn't fun at all.

replies(13): >>43236847 #>>43237043 #>>43237101 #>>43237162 #>>43237387 #>>43237808 #>>43237956 #>>43238722 #>>43238763 #>>43238978 #>>43239372 #>>43239665 #>>43241112 #
fuzztester ◴[] No.43237162[source]
>My fear is that LLM generated code will look great to me, I won't understand it fully but it will work.

puzzled. if you don't understand it fully, how can you say that it will look great to you, and that it will work?

replies(4): >>43237362 #>>43238789 #>>43241331 #>>43247810 #
1. rsynnott ◴[] No.43241331[source]
I mean, depends what you mean by ‘work’. For instance, something which produces the correct output, and leaks memory, is that working? Something which produces the correct output, but takes a thousand times longer than it should; is that working? Something which produces output which looks superficially correct and passes basic tests, is that working?

‘Works for me’ isn’t actually _that_ useful a signal without serious qualification.

replies(2): >>43247005 #>>43275331 #
2. fuzztester ◴[] No.43247005[source]
exactly.

what you said just strengthens my argument.

3. fuzztester ◴[] No.43275331[source]
>‘Works for me’ isn’t actually _that_ useful a signal without serious qualification.

yes, and it sounds a bit like "works on my machine", a common cop-out which I am sure many of us have heard of.

google: works on my machine meme