←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.348s | 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. cheeseface ◴[] No.46180734[source]
There are cases where I would start the coding process by copy-pasting existing code (e.g. test suites, new screens in the UI) and this is where LLMs work especially well and produce code that is majority of the time production-ready as-is.

A common prompt I use is approximately ”Write tests for file X, look at Y on how to setup mocks.”

This is probably not ”de novo” and in terms of writing is maybe closer to something like updating a case study powerpoint with the current customer’s data.