The user, infact, has setup a tool for the task - an "AI model", unless you're saying one tool is better than others.
Of course LLMs can do a lot more than variable autocomplete. But all of the examples given are things that are removing cognitive overhead that probably won't exist after a little practice doing it yourself.
- Your hot path functions get optimized, probabilistically
- Your requests to a webserver are probabilistic, and most of the systems have retries built in.
- Heck, 1s and 0s operate in a range, with error bars built in. It isnt really 5V = 1 and 0V = 0.
Just because YOU dont deal with probabilistic events while programming in rust, or python doesnt mean it is inherently bad. Embrace it.
> Just because YOU dont deal with probabilistic events while programming in ...
Runtime events such as what you enumerate are unrelated to "probabilistic codegen" the GP references, as "codegen" is short for "code generation" and in this context identifies an implementation activity.
Again, the post to which you originally replied was about code generation when authoring solution source code.
This has nothing to do with Linux, Linux process scheduling, RTOS[0], or any other runtime concern, be it operating system or otherwise.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_operating_system
Apples and oranges. It's frankly nonsense to tell me to "embrace it" as a phantom / strawman rebuttal about a broader concept I never said was inherently bad or even avoidable. I was talking much more specifically about non-deterministic code generation during implementation / authoring phase.
Old heads cling to their tools and yell at kids walking on lawns, completely unaware that the world already changed right under their noses.
This change is good for some people, but it isn't good for us – and I suspect the problems we're raising the alarm about also affect you.
Still prefer my neovim, but it really made me realize how much cognitive load all the keyboard shortcuts and other features add, even if they feel like muscle memory at this point.
I mean, sure, yes, it can. But drastically less efficiently, and with the possibility of errors. Where the problem can be easily soluble, why not pick the solution that's just...right?
I think you're clinging onto low-level thinking, whereas today you have tools at your disposal that allow you to easily focus on higher level details while eliminating the repetitive work required by, say, the shotgun surgery of adding individual log statements to a chain of function calls.
> Of course LLMs can do a lot more than variable autocomplete.
Yes, they can.
Managing log calls is just one of them. LLMs are a tool that you can use in many, many applications. And it's faster and more efficient than LSPs in accomplishing higher level tasks such as "add logs to this method/methods in this class/module". Why would anyone avoid using something that is just there?
There are many people out there that have absolutely no idea how horrible or great they have it.
It can infer the correct logging setup from the rest of the project and add the most logical values to it automatically
You are commenting a blog post on how a user set up his tools. It's just that it's not your tool that is being showcased.
> You should be able to type log and have it tab complete because your editor should be aware of the context you're in.
...or, hear me out, you don't have to. Think about it. If you have a tool that you type "add logs" and it's aware of best practices, context, and your own internal usage... I mean, why are you bothering with typing "log" at all?
I’m not saying not to use them, but you putting it like that is very dishonest and doesn’t represent the actual reality of it. It doesn’t serve anyone but the vendors to be a shill about LLMs.