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
My philosophy is to let the LLM either write the logic or write the tests - but not both. If you write the tests and it writes the logic and it passes all of your tests, then the LLM did its job. If there are bugs, there were bugs in your tests.

>>intras+rN
I don't agree. What I do agree on is to do it not only with one LLM.

Quality increases if I double check code with a second LLM (especially o4 mini is great for that)

Or double check tests the same way.

Maybe even write tests and code with different LLMs if that is your worry.