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
That rather depends on the type of bug and what kinds of tests you would write.

LLMs are way faster than me at writing tests. Just prompt for the kind of test you want.

>>underd+YR
Idk about you but I spend much more time thinking about what ways the code is likely to break and deciding what to test. Actually writing tests is usually straightforward and fast with any sane architecture with good separation of concerns.

I can and do use AI to help with test coverage but coverage is pointless if you don’t catch the interesting edge cases.