←back to thread

Hallucinations in code are the least dangerous form of LLM mistakes

(simonwillison.net)
371 points ulrischa | 4 comments | 02 Mar 25 19:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
notepad0x90 ◴[02 Mar 25 23:24 UTC] 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 #
noisy_boy ◴[03 Mar 25 00:44 UTC] No.43237043[source]▶
I do these things for this:

- keep the outline in my head: I don't give up the architect's seat. I decide which module does what and how it fits in the whole system, it's contract with other modules etc.

- review the code: this can be construed as negating the point of LLMs as this is time consuming but I think it is important to go through line by line and understand every line. You will absorb some of the LLM generated code in the process which will form an imperfect map in your head. That's essential for beginning troubleshooting next time things go wrong.

- last mile connectivity: several times the LLM takes you there but can't complete the last mile connectivity; instead of wasting time chasing it, do the final wiring yourself. This is a great shortcut to achieve the previous point.

replies(3): >>43238729 #>>43238883 #>>43240520 #
zahlman ◴[03 Mar 25 05:56 UTC] No.43238729[source]▶
The way you've written this comes across like the AI is influencing your writing style....
replies(2): >>43238745 #>>43240778 #
noisy_boy ◴[03 Mar 25 11:39 UTC] No.43240778[source]▶
thatistrue I us ed to write lik this b4 ai it has change my life
replies(1): >>43242127 #
1. matthberg ◴[03 Mar 25 14:36 UTC] No.43242127[source]▶
As someone pretty firmly in the anti-AI camp, I'm genuinely glad that you've personally found AI a useful tool to polish text and help you communicate.

I think that just because someone might be more or less eloquent than someone else, the value of their thoughts and contributions shouldn't be weighed any differently. In a way, AI formatting and grammar assistance could be a step towards a more equitable future, one where ideas are judged on inherent merits rather than superficial junk like spel;ng or idk typos n shi.t

However, I think what the parent commenter (and I) might be saying is that it seems you're relying on AI for more than just help expressing yourself—it seems you're relying on it to do the thinking too. I'd urge you to consider if that's what you really want from a tool you use. That said, I'm just some random preachy-judgy stranger on the internet, you don't owe me shit, lol

(Side notes I couldn't help but include: I think talking about AI and language is way more complicated (and fascinating) than just that aspect, including things I'm absolutely unqualified to comment on—discrimination against AAVE use, classism, and racism can't and shouldn't be addressed by a magic-wand spell-checker that "fixes" everyone's speech to be "correct" (as if a sole cultural hegemony or way of speech is somehow better than any other))

replies(1): >>43242277 #
2. noisy_boy ◴[03 Mar 25 14:52 UTC] No.43242277[source]▶
> As someone pretty firmly in the anti-AI camp, I'm genuinely glad that you've personally found AI a useful tool to polish text and help you communicate.

> I think that just because someone might be more or less eloquent than someone else, the value of their thoughts and contributions shouldn't be weighed any differently. In a way, AI formatting and grammar assistance could be a step towards a more equitable future, one where ideas are judged on inherent merits rather than superficial junk like spel;ng or idk typos n shi.t

I guess I must come clean that my reply was sarcasm which obviously fell flat and caused you to come to the defense of those who can't spell - I swear I don't have anything against them.

> However, I think what the parent commenter (and I) might be saying is that it seems you're relying on AI for more than just help expressing yourself—it seems you're relying on it to do the thinking too. I'd urge you to consider if that's what you really want from a tool you use. That said, I'm just some random preachy-judgy stranger on the internet, you don't owe me shit, lol

You and presumably the parent commenter have missed the main point of the retort - you are assuming I am relying on AI for my content or its style. It is neither - I like writing point-wise in a systematic manner, always have, always will - AI or no-AI be damned. It is the all-knowing veil-piercing eagle-eyed deduction of random preachy-judgy strangers on the internet about something being AI-generated/aided just because it follows structure, that is annoying.

replies(1): >>43242693 #
3. danielmarkbruce ◴[03 Mar 25 15:31 UTC] No.43242693[source]▶
It's funny that some folks seem to assume AI writing style just arrive out of thin air....
replies(1): >>43265898 #
4. noisy_boy ◴[05 Mar 25 13:01 UTC] No.43265898{3}[source]▶
Maybe LLM generated text was their first-contact with structured and systematic writing.