Programming

22204 readers

128 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

Ignoring lemmyhate, are programmers really using AI to be more efficient? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 day ago by bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works to c/programming@programming.dev

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've seen a few articles saying that instead of hating AI, the real quiet programmers young and old are loving it and have a renewed sense of purpose coding with llm helpers (this article was also hating on ed zitiron, which makes sense why it would).

Is this total bullshit? I have to admit, even though it makes me ill, I've used llms a few times to help me learn simple code syntax quickly (im and absolute noob who's wanted my whole life to learn code but cant grasp it very well). But yes, a lot of time its wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kewjo@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

the 1000x before bit has quite a few sideffects to it as well.

lesser used languages suffer because there's not enough training data. this gets annoying quickly when it overrides your static tools and suggests nonsense.
larger training sets contain more vulnerabilities as most code is pretty terrible and may just be snippets that someone used once and threw away. owasp has a top 10 for a reason. take input validation for example, if I'm working on parsing a string there's usually context such as is this trusted data or untrusted? if i don't have that mental model where I'm thinking about the data i might see generated code and think it looks correct but in reality its extremely nefarious.

[–] mesamunefire@piefed.social 12 points 1 day ago

Its also trained on old stuff.

And because its old, you get some very strange side effects and less maintainability.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's decent at reviewing its own code, especially if you give it different lenses to look though.

"Analyze this code and look for security vulnerabilities." "Analyze this code and look for ways to reduce complexity."

And then.... think about the response like it's a random dude online reviewing your code. Lots of times it raises good issues but sometimes it tries too hard to find little shit that is at best a sidegrade.