(no title)
Prosammer | 1 year ago
LLMs do not write very "clever" code by default. Without prompting them continuously to make it more "clever", they tend to write lots and lots of simple code, vs writing "clever" code that reduces redundant code, improves performance, etc.
What I am curious about is if these slop-filled codebases will be a problem or not in the future - traditionally it's been bad practice to have duplicate code everywhere, but with LLMs it feels like it matters less, as long as the code is simple and readable.
evil-olive|1 year ago
duplicate code is a bad practice "traditionally" because it means if you have a bug, you have to fix it in N spots (each of which may have drifted to be slightly different) instead of just 1.
how do LLMs improve that? if you have a bug (which everyone seems to agree happens more often with LLM-generated code) you'll still need to fix it in N spots. being able to feed those N instances into the LLM and ask it to fix the bug maybe speeds the process up a little, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
when I got into the industry in the 2000s, saving costs by outsourcing to India was the hype cycle of the day. would you have the same opinion that duplicate code doesn't matter, because you can just pay cheap outsourced engineers to make those N redundant bugfixes?
Prosammer|11 months ago
Fade_Dance|1 year ago
I would expect there to be innovation in this arena as well, beyond auto-generating code comments for future maintainers.