Comment on: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code
But I don't enjoy reviewing AI-generated PRs. Poring over hundreds of lines of overly-defensive, badly-commented, subtly incorrect code is not fun.Ain't that the truth. There's no "because" there. A field in the middle of a struct is missing initialization? Whoops! Bitfield indexes start at 1 when bits 0 and 1 are explicitly noted in the docs as "reserved"? Whoops! A whole struct representing one of many items (the other structs are all there!) and it's supporting parsing and init functions doesn't appear? Whooops! My python-programmer co-worker makes pretty consistent mistakes when dealing wi
Comment on: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code
> Well there’s a lot of middle ground between “don’t use AI” and “generate everything.”Sure, but again, this assumes both that handwriting code sometimes outperforms LLMs, and also that your employer agrees with this.I think it’s only a matter of time (again, if we’re not already there) before LLMs outperform handwritten code nearly all of the time.And, even if that’s not the case, I’m pretty convinced nearly all employers believe this is true, whether it is or not.So your employer only sees a “middle ground” as room for higher productivity.
Comment on: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code
> The current frontier is very capable on higher level design tasks as well. If your problem is spiritual or social or economic, then let's skip this "not productive enough" alibi talk.My problem is not about the productivity, it's about how this productivity is measured.> Yes you should have a guy checking the output and doing some light touchups, given the draft and explanations and references provided by the AI, but the time of doing it fully manually and being competitive on the real world translator market has ended.Have this been measured that this is actually faster while ensuring a qua
Comment on: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code
> LLM speedups have always been predicated on not understanding the code they produce as well as if you wrote it yourself. Reviewing even well written code to understand it in depth, has always taken longer than simply writing it yourself - let alone sloppy LLM code that you have to fixI am at least 3x more productive by letting an LLM write my code and I review and understand every single line it writes.Also, Fable 5 came up with some amazing solution and designs that I would have never been able to do myself.I can say with 100% surety that my current project at work is MUCH better with an LL
Comment on: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code
It is game theory optimal to use LLMs as little as possible even if your employer wants you to use it. The less you use it, the more competitive you are in the market, and probably also in your current workplace, LLM usage metrics notwithstanding. This fact will remain true forever, even if LLMs always outperform handwritten code and all employers want you to use them.Probably what you want to do is use it a lot when you first start a job to establish some productivity credence, then as you become ready to switch jobs, use it less and less until you're writing everything by hand and taking int