←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 3 comments | 07 Dec 25 01:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.481s | source
Show context
mcqueenjordan ◴[07 Dec 25 02:22 UTC] No.46178624[source]▶
As usual with Oxide's RFDs, I found myself vigorously head-nodding while reading. Somewhat rarely, I found a part that I found myself disagreeing with:

> Unlike prose, however (which really should be handed in a polished form to an LLM to maximize the LLM’s efficacy), LLMs can be quite effective writing code de novo.

Don't the same arguments against using LLMs to write one's prose also apply to code? Was this structure of the code and ideas within the engineers'? Or was it from the LLM? And so on.

Before I'm misunderstood as a LLM minimalist, I want to say that I think they're incredibly good at solving for the blank page syndrome -- just getting a starting point on the page is useful. But I think that the code you actually want to ship is so far from what LLMs write, that I think of it more as a crutch for blank page syndrome than "they're good at writing code de novo".

I'm open to being wrong and want to hear any discussion on the matter. My worry is that this is another one of the "illusion of progress" traps, similar to the one that currently fools people with the prose side of things.

replies(9): >>46178640 #>>46178642 #>>46178818 #>>46179080 #>>46179150 #>>46179217 #>>46179552 #>>46180049 #>>46180734 #
1. averynicepen ◴[07 Dec 25 03:10 UTC] No.46178818[source]▶
Writing is an expression of an individual, while code is a tool used to solve a problem or achieve a purpose.

The more examples of different types of problems being solved in similar ways present in an LLM's dataset, the better it gets at solving problems. Generally speaking, if it's a solution that works well, it gets used a lot, so "good solutions" become well represented in the dataset.

Human expression, however, is diverse by definition. The expression of the human experience is the expression of a data point on a statistical field with standard deviations the size of chasms. An expression of the mean (which is what an LLM does) goes against why we care about human expression in the first place. "Interesting" is a value closely paired with "different".

We value diversity of thought in expression, but we value efficiency of problem solving for code.

There is definitely an argument to be made that LLM usage fundamentally restrains an individual from solving unsolved problems. It also doesn't consider the question of "where do we get more data from".

>the code you actually want to ship is so far from what LLMs write

I think this is a fairly common consensus, and my understanding is the reason for this issue is limited context window.

replies(2): >>46178903 #>>46182453 #
2. twodave ◴[07 Dec 25 03:28 UTC] No.46178903[source]▶
I argue that the intent of an engineer is contained coherently across the code of a project. I have yet to get an LLM to pick up on the deeper idioms present in a codebase that help constrain the overall solution towards these more particular patterns. I’m not talking about syntax or style, either. I’m talking about e.g. semantic connections within an object graph, understanding what sort of things belong in the data layer based on how it is intended to be read/written, etc. Even when I point it at a file and say, “Use the patterns you see there, with these small differences and a different target type,” I find that LLMs struggle. Until they can clear that hurdle without requiring me to restructure my entire engineering org they will remain as fancy code completion suggestions, hobby project accelerators, and not much else.
3. mac-attack ◴[07 Dec 25 15:38 UTC] No.46182453[source]▶
Very well stated.