zlacker

[return to "My AI skeptic friends are all nuts"]
1. davidc+K8[view] [source] 2025-06-02 22:01:46
>>tablet+(OP)
>If you were trying and failing to use an LLM for code 6 months ago †, you’re not doing what most serious LLM-assisted coders are doing.

Here’s the thing from the skeptic perspective: This statement keeps getting made on a rolling basis. 6 months ago if I wasn’t using the life-changing, newest LLM at the time, I was also doing it wrong and being a luddite.

It creates a never ending treadmill of boy-who-cried-LLM. Why should I believe anything outlined in the article is transformative now when all the same vague claims about productivity increases were being made about the LLMs from 6 months ago which we now all agree are bad?

I don’t really know what would actually unseat this epistemic prior at this point for me.

In six months, I predict the author will again think the LLM products of 6 month ago (now) were actually not very useful and didn’t live up to the hype.

◧◩
2. anxoo+0l[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:17:25
>>davidc+K8
name 5 tasks which you think current AIs can't do. then go and spend 30 minutes seeing how current AIs can do on them. write it on a sticky note and put it somewhere that you'll see it.

otherwise, yes, you'll continue to be irritated by AI hype, maybe up until the point where our civilization starts going off the rails

◧◩◪
3. TheRoq+mp[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:49:57
>>anxoo+0l
Well, I'll try to do a sticky note here:

- they can't be aware of the latest changes in the frameworks I use, and so force me to use older features, sometimes less efficient

- they fail at doing clean DRY practices even though they are supposed to skim through the codebase much faster than me

- they bait me into inexisting apis, or hallucinate solutions or issues

- they cannot properly pick the context and the files to read in a mid-size app

- they suggest to download some random packages, sometimes low quality ones, or unmaintained ones

◧◩◪◨
4. simonw+Vr[view] [source] 2025-06-03 00:11:09
>>TheRoq+mp
"they can't be aware of the latest changes in the frameworks I use, and so force me to use older features, sometimes less efficient"

That's mostly solved by the most recent ones that can run searches. I've had great results from o4-mini for this, since it can search for the latest updates - example here: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/21/ai-assisted-search/#la...

Or for a lot of libraries you can dump the ENTIRE latest version into the prompt - I do this a lot with the Google Gemini 2.5 models since those can handle up to 1m tokens of input.

"they fail at doing clean DRY practices" - tell them to DRY in your prompt.

"they bait me into inexisting apis, or hallucinate solutions or issues" - really not an issue if you're actually testing your code! I wrote about that one here: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/2/hallucinations-in-code/ - and if you're using one of the systems that runs your code for you (as promoted in tptacek's post) it will spot and fix these without you even needing to intervene.

"they cannot properly pick the context and the files to read in a mid-size app" - try Claude Code. It has a whole mechanism dedicated to doing just that, I reverse-engineered it this morning: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/2/claude-trace/

"they suggest to download some random packages, sometimes low quality ones, or unmaintained ones" - yes, they absolutely do that. You need to maintain editorial control over what dependencies you add.

[go to top]