[ajkdhcb2]

My experiences have all been like this too. I am puzzled by how some people say it works for them

[simonw]

I wrote this article precisely for people who are having trouble getting good results out of LLMs for coding: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/11/using-llms-for-code/

[mplanchard]

I’ve followed your blog for a while, and I have been meaning to unsubscribe because the deluge of AI content is not what I’m looking for.

I read the linked article when it was posted, and I suspect a few things that are skewing your own view of the general applicability of LLMs for programming. One, your projects are small enough that you can reasonably provide enough context for the language model to be useful. Two, you’re using the most common languages in the training data. Three, because of those factors, you’re willing to put much more work into learning how to use it effectively, since it can actually produce useful content for you.

I think it’s great that it’s a technology you’re passionate about and that it’s useful for you, but my experience is that in the context of working in a large systems codebase with years of history, it’s just not that useful. And that’s okay, it doesn’t have to be all things to all people. But it’s not fair to say that we’re just holding it wrong.

[Workaccount2]

LLMs need to stay bad. What is going to happen if we have another few GPT-3.5 to Gemini 2.5 sized steps? You're telling people who need to keep the juicy SWE gravy train running for another 20 years to recognize that the threat is indeed very real. The writing is on the wall and no one here (here on HN especially) is going to celebrate those pointing to it.

[codegangsta]

Just wanted to chime in and say how appreciative I’ve been about all your replies here, and overall content on AI. Your takes are super reasonable and well thought out.