zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
Weird to claim the llm does all the boring learning and boilerplate for you as a selling point, but then also insist we still need to responsibly read all the output, and if you can't understand it's a "skill issue".

Also the emphasis on greenfield projects? Starting is by FAR the easiest part. That's not impressive to me. When do we get to code greenfield for important systems? Reminds me of the equally absurd example of language choice. You think you get to choose? What?

Imagine all the code these agents are going to pump out that can never be reviewed in a reasonable time frame. The noise generated at the whim of bike-shedding vibe coders is going to drown all the senior reviewers soon enough. I'll call that Cowboy Coders on Steroids. Anyone with skills will be buried in reviews, won't have time for anything else, and I predict stricter code gen policies to compensate.

>>r0s+6T
And (rigorously) reviewing code is easily 10x harder than writing it.

But this won't stop it from happening.

>>layla5+3V
This is just obviously not true. I had a full-time job of reviewing code for roughly 15 years and it was never true, but it's also just intuitively not true that engineers spend 10 hours reviewing their peers code to every 1 they spend writing it.

What you mean to claim here is that verification is 10x harder than authorship. That's true, but unhelpful to skeptics, because LLMs are extremely useful for verification.

>>tptace+e31
I once graded over 100 exams in an introductory programming course (Python). The main exercise was to implement a simple game (without using a runtime).

Some answers were trivial to grade—either obviously correct or clearly wrong. The rest were painful and exhausting to evaluate.

Checking whether the code was correct and tracing it step by step in my head was so draining that I swore never to grade programming again.

>>JohnKe+b41
Right, sure. So: this doesn't generally happen with LLM outputs, but if it does, you simply kill the PR. A lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that LLM agents don't have a 100% hit rate, let alone a 100% one-shot hit rate. A huge part of the idea is that it does not matter if an agents output is immediately workable. Just take the PRs where the code is straightforwardly reviewable.

>>tptace+u41
You're massively burying the lede here with your statement of 'just take the PRs where the code is straightforwardly reviewable'. It's honestly such an odious statement that it makes me doubt your expertise in reviewing code and PRs.

A lot of code can not and will not be straightforwardly reviewable because it all depends on context. Using an LLM adds an additional layer of abstraction between you and the context, because now you have to untangle whether or not it accomplished the context you gave it.