The problem is not AI code, but not knowing about system architecture or intent
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
The problem is not AI code, but not knowing about system architecture or intent
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
bengold14 · · focus · HN ↗
Edit: Since I seem to have touched a nerve - I've been working on a project to solve this: <a href="https://www.archme.io" rel="nofollow">https://www.archme.io if you want to know my thoughts on the right abstraction
verdverm · · focus · HN ↗
I have strong disagreement because it sounds like, by analogy or proxy, we have also "solved writing"
glimshe · · focus · HN ↗
Saying that LLMs have "reduced the cost of coding" would be boring. And using your analogy, pencils, typewriters and computers have all reduced the cost of writing, but writers are still around.
grumbel · · focus · HN ↗
You might still need to nudge the LLM in the right direction or stop it from going off weird tangents, but none of that involves touching actual code yourself.
verdverm · · focus · HN ↗
Ai can push a lot of keys very fast, but not always the right ones
if they need to be reminded to follow the coding standards, visible in the very code they are working on, what has been solved?
grumbel · · focus · HN ↗
Opening the IDE and typing program code. With LLMs you don't have to use an IDE, you don't have look at program code, you don't have to care about coding standards. You ask the chatbot to write you a program/feature/fix and chatbot does it.
Is chatting with a chatbot still "coding"?
The part that isn't fully solved is just the software architecture side of things, do you want library A or library B, or write it all from scratch? LLM can do all three, but if you aren't careful it might go down a route that you don't like. But that again can be fixed with chat, "replace A with B", not coding.
tripleee · · focus · HN ↗
How far would they get?
verdverm · · focus · HN ↗