←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 01:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.191s | source
Show context
rgoulter ◴[07 Dec 25 02:10 UTC] No.46178575[source]▶
> LLM-generated writing undermines the authenticity of not just one’s writing but of the thinking behind it as well.

I think this points out a key point.. but I'm not sure the right way to articulate it.

A human-written comment may be worth something, but an LLM-generated is cheap/worthless.

The nicest phrase capturing the thought I saw was: "I'd rather read the prompt".

It's probably just as good to let an LLM generate it again, as it is to publish something written by an LLM.

replies(5): >>46178739 #>>46179142 #>>46179749 #>>46181070 #>>46184241 #
1. crabmusket ◴[07 Dec 25 04:28 UTC] No.46179142[source]▶
I think more people should read Naur's "programming as theory building".

A comment is an attempt to more fully document the theory the programmer has. Not all theory can be expressed in code. Both code and comment are lossy artefacts that are "projections" of the theory into text.

LLMs currently, I believe, cannot have a theory of the program. But they can definitely perform a useful simulacrum of such. I have not yet seen an LLM generated comment that is truly valuable. Of course, lots of human generated comments are not valuable either. But the ceiling for human comments is much, much higher.