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
Yes, exactly - my (admittedly very limited!) experience has consistently generated well-written, working code that just doesn’t quite do what I asked. Often the results will be close to what I expect, and the coding errors do not necessarily jump out on a first line-by-line pass, so if I didn’t have a high degree of skepticism of the generated code in the first place, I could easily just run with it.

>>fisher+oO
> working code that just doesn’t quite do what I asked

Code that doesn't do what you want isn't "working", bro.

Working exactly to spec is the code's only job.

>>otabde+BT
It is a bit ambiguous I think, there is also the meaning of "the code compiles/runs without errors". But I also prefer the meaning of, "code that is working to the spec".