I find it interesting that this outcome is a surprise. I don't want this to sound smug, I'm genuinely curious what the initial expectations are and where they come from.
They seem to be different for LLMs, because would anyone be surprised if they handed summary feature descriptions to some random "developer" you've ever only met online, and got back an absolute dung pile of half-broken implementation?
For some reason, people seem to expect miracles from some machine that they would not expect of other humans, especially not ones with a proven penchant for rambling hallucinations every once in a while.
I'd like to know, ideally from people who've been there, why they think that is. Where does the trust come from?
LLMs do deliver "miracles", in certain cases, if you've experienced it and have been blown away by their output (one shot functional app from a well manufactured prompt, new feature added flawlessly on a complicated existing codebase, etc.), it can be tempting to reajust your expectations and think this will work consistently and at a much larger scale.
They can assimilate 100s of thousands of tokens of context in few seconds/minutes and do exceptional pattern matching beyond what any human can do, that's a main factor in why it looks like "miracles" to us. When a model actually solves a long standing issue that was never addressed due to a lack of funding/time/knowledge, it does feel miraculous and when you are exposed to this a couple of times it's easy to give them more trust, just like you would trust someone who provided you a helping hand a couple of times more than at total stranger.
I suppose it's difficult to account for the inconsistency of something able to perform up to standard (and fast!) at one time, but then lose the plot in subtle or not-so-subtle ways the next.
We're wired to see and treat this machine as a human and therefore are tempted to trust it as if it were a human who demonstrated proficiency. Then we're surprised when the machine fails to behave like one.
I have to say, I'm still flabbergasted by the willingness to check out completely and not even keep on top of, and a mental model of, what gets produced. But the mind is easily tempted into laziness, I presume, especially when the fun part of thinking gets outsourced, and only the less fun work of checking is left. At least that's what makes the difference for me between coding and reviewing. One is considerably more interesting than the other, much less similar than they should be, given that they both should require gaining a similar understanding of the code.
I've never relied on an LLM to build a large section of code but I can see why people might think it is worth a try. It is incredible for finding issues in the code that I write, arguably its best use-case. When I let it write a function on its own, it is often perfect and maybe even more concise and idiomatic than I would have been able to produce. It is natural to extrapolate and believe that whatever intelligence drives those results would also be able to handle much more.
It is surprising how bad it is at taking the lead given how effective it is with a much more limited prompt, particularly if you buy in to all the hype that it can take the place of human intelligence. It is capable of applying a incredible amount of knowledge while having virtually no real understanding of the problem.
I think I was sold the full agentic coding hype all over the internet. You give it a try and it does write a feature really fast. Impressed you test the boundaries more and more and before you know it this has become your new workflow. Breaking free of this again is harder than you'd think even when you do realize what a mess is generated in the process.
Receiving an absolute dung pile of half-broken implementation is honestly what I expect from most working software engineers. Now the step where they spend even a second thinking about what they are doing has been removed. My job as a principle engineer became doing most of the thinking for people and then providing the only worthwhile code reviews before LLMs became a thing. LLMs just made these people even less useful and my job became even more about reviewing their low quality work that I could have done in less time manually.
LLMs also don't solve the much bigger problem of most software engineers having no ability to work with others to clarify requests or offer alternatives. So now bad and/or misunderstood requests can be implemented faster.
Probably same reason people expected outsourcing to the cheapest firm in India would work: wishful thinking. People wanted it to work and therefore deluded themselves.
Or really the same reason people fall for get rich quick schemes.
I'm relieved that clogo is not an option for you. It has some strong, malodorous campground toilet connotations to my foreign-language-trained ears. Loogo? Pottygo? Go number 2? Yikes to all of those.
The better filter is to spend the precious interview time talking about actual experience solving real work problems, it has a high signal to noise ratio, because it gives you information on many independent axes.
I guess for candidates fresh out of school, you have to fall back to things they should know out of school as a proxy.
Any style can cross the border into bad and get in the way of itself when it's turned up to 11, no matter who wrote it.
There've been stylistic fads before LLMs where a thing, with results just as chalkboard-screech-inducing as the current one. That this one is just a button-push away does make it worse, though, because it proliferates so greedily.
Bad writing is bad writing, and writing like an LLM is writing like an LLM. We should be able to call this out. In fact, calling out the human responsibility in it is the very opposite of dehumanizing to me.
Yes, definitely, but the parent post was quite explicitly saying it was either LLM generated or the person's style was influenced by consuming LLM content.
Sure, call the style bad or even similar to LLMs, but there's no reason to believe the style came from LLMs. It existed before and people who used it before still exist and still use it now.
Hell, this person seems to be a web(site) developer, that's a very marketing-speak-heavy field. It's far morely likely that's where they "caught" thos style. It happened to me too back when I was still in it.
I think the original comment is much more open-minded towards the author of the TFA than you are to the commenter.
> explicitly saying it was either LLM generated or the person's style was influenced by consuming LLM content
We might disagree here, but if we're strict they did not say "either/or", especially not explicitly. They raised two possibilities, but didn't exclude others.
> there's no reason to believe the style came from LLMs
They say "might" and "plausibly". I think there's no belief there until you assume it.
And even if: It's not unlikely that a contemporary author's mind is influenced by the prevalent LLM style. We are influenced by what we read. This has been happening to everyone for ages, without anyone questioning the agency of writers. There's nothing wrong with suggesting like that could be the case here. It's entirely human.
I know it's easy for one's mind to jump to conclusions, but I am not a fan of taking that as far as accusing someone of "dehumanizing" others. Such an escalation should ideally cause a pause and a think, before pressing submit.
Nah, the two possibilities were in fact exclusive in my mind (subject of course to the usual likelihood of any one thing I say being completely wrong, but that’s always in the background and not that useful to constantly point out). And it might be fair to say that it is unwise to attempt this kind of amateur psychoanalysis in public. It’s just that I don’t see being influenced by things you read as a big deal, let alone an accusation, let alone a dehumanizing one. See my neighbouring comment[1] for more on the last point.
Seems to be one of those things where you think about them for a minute and go, huh, that'd be neat, but then you think about it some more how it'd play out in the real world, and that's when it starts to get actually interesting.
Sounds dramatic, but it entirely depends on what "many" and "plenty" means in your comment, and who exactly is included. So far, what you wrote can be seen as an expectable level of drama surrounding such projects.
They seem to be different for LLMs, because would anyone be surprised if they handed summary feature descriptions to some random "developer" you've ever only met online, and got back an absolute dung pile of half-broken implementation?
For some reason, people seem to expect miracles from some machine that they would not expect of other humans, especially not ones with a proven penchant for rambling hallucinations every once in a while.
I'd like to know, ideally from people who've been there, why they think that is. Where does the trust come from?
reply