If your metric is an LLM that can copy/paste without alterations, and never hallucinate APIs, then yeah, you'll always be disappointed with them.
The rest of us learn how to be productive with them despite these problems.
I struggle to take comments like this seriously - yes, it is very reasonable to expect these magical tools to copy and paste something without alterations. How on earth is that an unreasonable ask?
The whole discourse around LLMs is so utterly exhausting. If I say I don't like them for almost any reason, I'm a luddite. If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high.
What, precisely, are they good for?
I agree that there's definitely some overhype to them right now. At least for the stuff I've done they have gotten considerably better though, to a point where the code it generates is often usable, if sub-optimal.
For example, about three years ago, I was trying to get ChatGPT to write me a C program to do a fairly basic ZeroMQ program. It generated something that looked correct, but it would crash pretty much immediately, because it kept trying to use a pointer after free.
I tried the same thing again with Codex about a week ago, and it worked out of the box, and I was even able to get it to do more stuff.
scamming people
The gist is this: Programmers view computers as deterministic. They can't tolerate a tool that behaves differently from run to run. They have a very binary view of the world: If it can't satisfy this "basic" requirement, it's crap.
Programmers have made their career (and possibly life) being experts at solving problems that greatly benefit from determinism. A problem that doesn't - well either that needs to be solved by sophisticated machine learning, or by a human. They're trained on essentially ignoring those problems - it's not their expertise.
And so they get really thrown off when people use computers in a nondeterministic way to solve a deterministic problem.
For everyone else, the world, and its solutions, are mostly non-deterministic. When they solve a problem, or when they pay people to solve a problem, the guarantees are much lower. They don't expect perfection every time.
When a normal human asks a programmer to make a change, they understand that communication is lossy, and even if it isn't, programmers make mistakes.
Using a tool like an LLM is like any other tool. Or like asking any other human to do something.
For programmers, it's a cardinal sin if the tool is unpredictable. So they dismiss it. For everyone else, it's just another tool. They embrace it.
[1] This, of course, is changing as they become better at coding.
I use LLMs, I code with a mix of antigravity and Claude code depending on the task, but I feel like I’m living in a different reality when the code I get out of these tools _regularly just doesn’t work, at all_. And to the parents point, I’m doing something wrong for noticing that?
> And to the parents point, I’m doing something wrong for noticing that?
There's nothing wrong pointing out your experience. What the OP was implying was he expects them to be able to copy/paste reliably almost 100% of the time, and not hallucinate. I was merely pointing out that he'll never get that with LLMs, and that their inability to do so isn't a barrier to getting productive use out of them.
> he'll never get that with LLMs, and that their inability to do so isn't a barrier to getting productive use out of them.
This is _exactly_ what the comment thread we're in said - and I agree with him. > The whole discourse around LLMs is so utterly exhausting. If I say I don't like them for almost any reason, I'm a luddite. If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high.
> If it were terrible, you wouldn't use them, right? Isn't the fact that you continue to use AI coding tools a sign that you find them a net positive? Or is it being imposed on you?
You're putting words in my mouth here - I'm not saying that they're terrible, I'm saying they're way, way, way overhyped, their abilities are overblown, (look at this post and the replies of people saying they're writing 90% of code with claude and using AI tools to review it), but when we challenge that, we're wrong.
Ah, no. This is wildly off the mark, but I think a lot of people don't understand what SWEs actually do.
We don't get paid to write code. We get paid to solve problems. We're knowledge workers like lawyers or doctors or other engineers, meaning we're the ones making the judgement calls and making the technical decisions.
In my current job, I tell my boss what I'm going to be working on, not the other way around. That's not always true, but it's mostly true for most SWEs.
The flip side of that is I'm also held responsible. If I write ass code and deploy it to prod, it's my ass that's gonna get paged for it. If I take prod down and cause a major incident, the blame comes to me. It's not hard to come up with scenarios where your bad choices end up costing the company enormous sums of money. Millions of dollars for large companies. Fines.
So no, it has nothing to do with non-determinism lol. We deal with that all the time. (Machine learning is decades old, after all.)
It's evaluating things, weighing the benefits against the risks and failure modes, and making a judgement call that it's ass.
Then there are the cases where I just cannot get it do what I ask. Ask Gemini to remove the background of an image and you get a JPEG with a backed in checkerboard background, even when you tell it to produce an RGBA PNG. Again, I don't have any use for that.
But it does know a lot of things, and sometimes it informs me of solutions I was not aware of. The code isn't great, but if I were non-technical (or not very good), this would be fantastic and better than I could do.