zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
The argument that I've heard against LLMs for code is that they create bugs that, by design, are very difficult to spot.

The LLM has one job, to make code that looks plausible. That's it. There's no logic gone into writing that bit of code. So the bugs often won't be like those a programmer makes. Instead, they can introduce a whole new class of bug that's way harder to debug.

>>jszymb+JM
This is a misunderstanding. Modern LLMs are trained with RL to actually write good programs. They aren't just spewing tokens out.

>>mindwo+TN
"Good" is the context of LLMs means "plausible". Not "correct".

If you can't code then the distinction is lost on you, but in fact the "correct" part is why programmers get paid. If "plausible" were good enough then the profession of programmer wouldn't exist.