Thread

1. tails4e · 1790894843 · focus · HN ↗

   I see this as worse for junior engineers than senior. Right now junior engineers don't have the experience to spot issues, ans if gpt-synopsys gives an answer they don't know to question it. It Will also be better than many junior engineers out of the box.. So junior engineers dont get a chance to learn and progress to senior. Senior engineers (for now) will interact with these agents and review the output, ans can direct them. Again, until it becomes better at that.

   Interesting times. A lot has happened in a year..where will we be a year from now?

   1. mohamedkoubaa · 1790897717 · focus · HN ↗

      A junior engineer can interrogate the heck out of the clanker and learn faster than they would otherwise.

      1. _jackdk_ · 1790906739 · focus · HN ↗

         This argument applies to learning to code in general. What is your estimate of the ratio between "just shipped whatever the clanker spat out" vs "interrogated the LLM about its own output†" vs "deliberately interrogates LLMs to learn"?

         †Untrustworthy, because it will either double down on its own output in its context, or will flip-flop to whatever the user said .

         1. mohamedkoubaa · 1790944237 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't know how many users of LLMs fall into each of these buckets but I have the sense that there these distinct buckets. I don't think it's necessarily a global thing. A single user could fall into all three buckets depending on the domain they are working in. For instance for CI/CD I tend to ship clanker, for tests I interrogate LLM about output, but for code algorithms I am more likely to interrogate to learn.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.