• Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Yes. And using the LLM to generate then developing the requisite understanding and making it maintainable is slower than just writing it in the first place. And that effect compounds with repetition.

    • Paragone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      TheRegister had an article, a year or 2 ago, about using AI in the opposite way: instead of creating the code, someone was using it to discover security-problems in it, & they said it was really useful for that, & most of its identified things, including some codebase which was sending private information off to some internet-server, which really are problems.

      I wonder if using LLM’s as editors, instead of writers, would be better-use for the things?

      _ /\ _

      • Alex@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        They are pretty good at summarisation. If I want to catch up with a long review thread on a patch series I’ve just started looking at I occasionally ask Gemini to outline the development so far and the remaining issues.

      • Whostosay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        A second pair of eyes has always been an acceptable way to use this imo, but it shouldnt be primary or only