> I suppose those advocates have more faith in LLM output compared to humans than I do.
Some of this is the funny situation where the faithful will state: "This writes better code than I do!" and miss the irony of: "yes, yes it does"
Some of this is the funny situation where the faithful will state: "This writes better code than I do!" and miss the irony of: "yes, yes it does"
"Blessed are the humble ..."
I guess it depends on what you consider "better". I've tried using LLMs to write code over the past couple of weeks with extremely mixed results.
The LLM certainly writes more interesting code! They like their cute ASCII/unicode animations, don't they?
It definitely writes a lot more code, none of it actually correct but some of it functionally similar to correct code.
If you like lots of code then I guess that's better. I like less code.
To be fair, there are plenty of situations where throwaway code is perfectly fine and/or defect risks are low enough to make the trade-off worth it. I don't think a lot of developers are thinking about it in that context, though.
(No unit tests aren't enough)
One of the few global Cluade directives I have setup is to never use emojis - and it never has, either in chat output or in code. Don't blame the tool when you don't spend 30 seconds configuring it. It's even easier with AI since you don't have to go digging for some obscure .vimrc snippet - it's literally just plain English.
Then when I get home, it's just a case of typing it in, which is the bit I'd love to automate away.
My experience with LLMs has been a bit like rubberducking code with someone who's *really* fast at looking stuff up on StackOverflow.