←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.399s | source
Show context
mcqueenjordan ◴[] 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. IgorPartola ◴[] No.46179552[source]
My suspicion is that this is a form of the paradox where you can recognize that the news being reported is wrong when it is on a subject in which you are an expert but then you move onto the next article on a different subject and your trust resumes.

Basically if you are a software engineer you can very easily judge quality of code. But if you aren’t a writer then maybe it is hard for you to judge the quality of a piece of prose.

replies(1): >>46192792 #
2. knollimar ◴[] No.46192792[source]
Gell-Mann amnesia