zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
So we replace the task of writing tedious boilerplate with the task of reading the AI's tedious boilerplate. Which takes just as long. And leaves you with less understanding. And is more boring.

>>bloat+j2
You are either a very fast producer or a very slow reader. Claude and Gemini are much faster at producing code than I am, and reviewing their code - twice over, even - still takes less time than writing it myself.

>>Philpa+s3
Reviewing code is often slower than writing it. You don't have to be an exceptionally fast coder or slow reviewer for that to be true.

>>seadan+f7
If this was the case, regular code review as a practice would be entirely unworkable.

>>thegeo+sd
"regular" code review is indeed a total theater, a travesty, a farce.

Real, meticulous code review takes absolutely forever.

>>Mofpof+Mm
This speaks to the low quality assurance bar that most of the software industry lives by.

If you're programming for a plane's avionics, as an example, the quality assurance bar is much, much higher. To the point where any time-saving benefits of using an LLM are most likely dwarfed by the time it takes to review and test the code.

It's easy to say LLM is a game-changer when there are no lives at stake, and therefore the cost of any errors is extremely low, and little to no QA occurs prior to being pushed to production.