Thread

1. axegon_ · 1789905896 · focus · HN ↗

   Ah, the "skill issue" argument again. Same crap aswhen everyonewas worshiping Musk 5-6 years ago, this time it's dario and altman with a claude/chatgpt mask. Crash can't come soon enough.

   1. skybrian · 1789906594 · focus · HN ↗

      And why wouldn’t writing software be a skill issue? Yes, it’s an annoying meme, but we should expect that there are better and worse ways to write software. It would be weird if everyone got the same results regardless of experience.

      I’m doubtful that the author’s recommendation always work, but I do some similar things and they do seem to help.

      1. malfist · 1789907364 · focus · HN ↗

         Anyone who thinks they can produce high quality code from an LLM is mistaken about how to judge code. Trust me, I've seen enough PRs to last a life time. A lot of professionals wouldn't know good code if it slapped them in the face.

         1. preg_match · 1789925545 · focus · HN ↗

            You can most definitely produce high-quality code via an LLM, particularly if you test your code aggressively and review it. Yes there are a lot of shoddy PRs, but that's nothing too new. The problem with LLMs is the amount of code they produce. More code = more garbage. But, that code velocity can be leveraged to increase quality. Through careful design and testing.

            Ultimately, I would take LLM code + high-quality multi-strategy testing over human code with little to no tests. And some would say "well that's a false dichotomy". I disagree, before LLMs engineers didn't have the time or incentives to aggressively test. The tests either would not exist, or would be shitty unit tests intended to get an arbitrary coverage percentage. Now, we can write high-quality tests, differential testing, fuzzing, and more, in much less time.

            1. maksDanylenko · 1790271312 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.