Jonathan Lamothe on Nostr: @[url=]Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸[/url] This is where I'm going ...

@[url=https://cosocial.ca/users/evan]Evan Prodromou 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇬🇷🇵🇸[/url] This is where I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

If I'm going to ship code, I need to be able to be able to answer for what that code does. The necessary level of understanding [em]can[/em] be achieved with LLM-generated code, but it involves [em]studging[/em] its output to be sure that every line—every statement—is understood. To me, it seems that the amount of work necessary to achieve that level of understanding negates any boost in prodictivity I may get from using the LLM in the first place, and it certainly doesn't justify the ethical cost.

I've been working on a fork of a large FOSS project lately. For me, the bottleneck hasn't been the actual writing of the code. More than half of my time has been spent [em]studying[/em] the existing code to understand how it works so I can figure out the best way to make my edits. An LLM can't just magically give me that understanding.

Also, when it comes the actual [em]writing[/em] of code, it's easier for me to express what I want in the unambiguous syntax of a programming language rather than the crude tool that is natural language. The latter I only use for communicating with other humans, and only because I lack a better tool for doing so. I'll freely admit that that last point is not universally true for everyone.

Also, I'll concede that the use of third-party libraries muddies the waters in terms of understanding how the code works. This is why I choose not to crucify those who [em]do[/em] use LLMs to write code. I just choose not to participate.