←back to thread

Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

(martinfowler.com)
416 points floverfelt | 3 comments | 28 Aug 25 18:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.733s | source
Show context
jeppester ◴[28 Aug 25 21:56 UTC] No.45057505[source]▶
In my company I feel that we getting totally overrun with code that's 90% good, 10% broken and almost exactly what was needed.

We are producing more code, but quality is definitely taking a hit now that no-one is able to keep up.

So instead of slowly inching towards the result we are getting 90% there in no time, and then spending lots and lots of time on getting to know the code and fixing and fine-tuning everything.

Maybe we ARE faster than before, but it wouldn't surprise me if the two approaches are closer than what one might think.

What bothers me the most is that I much prefer to build stuff rather than fixing code I'm not intimately familiar with.

replies(8): >>45057537 #>>45058508 #>>45061118 #>>45061272 #>>45061732 #>>45062347 #>>45065856 #>>45070745 #
epolanski ◴[28 Aug 25 22:00 UTC] No.45057537[source]▶
As Fowler himself states, there's a need to learn to use these tools properly.

In any case poor work quality is a failure of tech leadership and culture, it's not AI's fault.

replies(1): >>45058751 #
FromTheFirstIn ◴[29 Aug 25 00:53 UTC] No.45058751[source]▶
It’s funny how nothing seems to be AI’s fault.
replies(5): >>45060536 #>>45060602 #>>45060685 #>>45061146 #>>45062496 #
johnnienaked ◴[29 Aug 25 05:26 UTC] No.45060536[source]▶
No one seems to be able to grasp the possibility that AI is a failure
replies(3): >>45060690 #>>45060691 #>>45061671 #
raducu ◴[29 Aug 25 05:55 UTC] No.45060690[source]▶
> No one seems to be able to grasp the possibility that AI is a failure.

Do you think by the time GPT-9 comes, we'll say "That's it, AI is a failure, we'll just stop using it!"

Or do you speak in metaphorical/bigger picture/"butlerian jihad" terms?

replies(1): >>45061367 #
johnnienaked ◴[29 Aug 25 07:51 UTC] No.45061367[source]▶
I don't see the use-case now, maybe there will be one by GPT-9
replies(1): >>45061977 #
Kiro ◴[29 Aug 25 09:28 UTC] No.45061977[source]▶
Absence of your need isn't evidence of no need.
replies(1): >>45066598 #
1. johnnienaked ◴[29 Aug 25 17:00 UTC] No.45066598[source]▶
This is true, but I've never heard of a use case. To which you might reply, "doesn't mean there isn't one," which you would be also right about.

Maybe you know one.

replies(1): >>45076787 #
2. Kiro ◴[30 Aug 25 18:07 UTC] No.45076787[source]▶
I presume your definition of use case is something that doesn't include what people normally use it for. And I presume me using it for coding every day is disqualified as well.
replies(1): >>45095146 #
3. johnnienaked ◴[01 Sep 25 18:12 UTC] No.45095146[source]▶
I didn't mean to suggest it has no utility at all. That's obviously wrong (same for crypto). I meant a use case in line with the projections the companies have claimed (multiple trillions). Help with basic coding (of which efficiency gains are still speculative) is not a multi-trillion dollar business.