@jmax @flooper @plexus I'm not sure how you feed yourself and your kids. Maybe you are rich and don't have to worry about that. I'm not all that privileged.

@matt @dalias You use an LLM because it makes the code writing part take radically less time.

@matt @dalias Statistically, you will have more bugs because you have more software. But also, you can easily create tests, refactor and make executable requirements.

Making good software with LLM support is hard work and takes time. If you look at the stuff that people make with three prompts and then post to LinkedIn, you know what I mean.

A good program requires attention to detail, no matter what the tool does for you.

@matt @dalias You are absolutely right, but here's the thing: Code review also does not prevent subtle bugs from creeping into the code base when humans wrote the code. Review is just one of the tools that ensure software quality.

This is to say that code written by LLMs and humans suffer from similar issues, require similar care and review and can fail in similar ways. There is more LLM code, though, and there are new challenges because scaling with LLMs works differently than with humans.

@matt @dalias Code is different because it has a function that is beyond human reception.

@dalias @matt I live in capitalism as a software developer. I don't get to choose what tools I use, I'm getting paid to do the work. I can change my profession, or I can pick up what I need to know in order to sustain myself. This is me personally.

Then: LLMs create code that is comparable to human written code in that frame of reference. There is better code, but there is also much worse.

Finally: LLMs create shitty prose, shitty images and shitty music. I hate all of that.

@matt @dalias "Our understanding" is often incomplete, leading to code that is just a reflection of the process of understanding the task at hand. Code often suffers from that in that the person working on it learned faster than they could or would refactor. The resulting reality is that code, by and large, is messy.

Not everyone is working the same way, but it is certainly true that not everyone is a genius. Thus, bad, human code prevails.

@jmax @flooper @plexus I don't believe that "getting stuff done" is an ideology, but rather the reality under which every worker lives in capitalism. We're not getting paid for doing the right or the good thing, we're paid for getting the work done that the man wants us to do.

@dalias @matt @plexus In my experience as a software developer, there is no difference between a program written by a human and one written by an LLM. Both can be bad or dangerous, or good, or right. It is just that LLMs are faster at cranking out code.

@jmax I'm glad that smart people like you exist on the internet to explain things. Thank you!

@grishka @plexus Just keep watching then.

@matt @dalias @plexus Is the reality not that not all software is developed with meticulous attention to quality? In my experience, most software is primarily written with the intent to solve a problem. The engineering challenge is to make it maintainable as requirements evolve. Success is when the software fulfills its purpose.

I love writing beautiful code, but don't expect anyone to pay me for it - not only because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but also because users don't care.

@ohir @can @plexus Is it worth fighting for a world were regulation is possible? Or do we just need to succumb to the all-encompassing power of the economy and capitalism?

@grishka OK, but then be aware that your opinions will just be based on propaganda. I'd rather know what I'm talking about.

@schaueho @grishka @plexus I believe it is mostly a learning challenge. It was always possible and common to write bad and good software, and with LLMs generating code, new ways will need to be developed to ensure quality. This is the systemic part.

The personal part is that for some developers, their development activity changes. Merely writing code will not be a very common job for humans. Focus will be more on architecture, feature definition, requirements engineering etc.

@dalias @plexus I'm just a software developer. What I write comes from my personal experience writing software with Claude Code. Do you have any experience you can share? What are your credentials?

@can @plexus Sorry. I'm not great at words.

@grishka @schaueho @plexus Just try it yourself on something that you think it cannot succeed at. Happy to share a €10 Claude Code pass if you need one.

@grishka It is basically the same argument that old-school programmers make since decades when a new tool comes to the market.

@grishka Right on, and then consider that with the traditional mode of writing software, the cost of creating something that is good is very high.

I'd argue that with faster (machine assisted) software creation, it is easier to meet the need of users because the cost of change is drastically reduced. I'm experiencing that with those system that I'm currently writing that way.

The whole argument that software written by humans is better does not bear any merit for me.