this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
51 points (88.1% liked)

Programming

22204 readers
165 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

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
51
Ignoring lemmyhate, are programmers really using AI to be more efficient? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 days 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
[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

They'll never be able to learn, though.

A LLM is merely a statistical model of its training material. Very well indexed but extremely lossy compression.

It will always be outdated. It can never become familiar with your codebase and coding practices. And it'll always be extremely unreliable, because it's just a text generator without any semblance of comprehension about what the texts it generates actually mean.

All it'll ever be able to do is reproduce the standards as they were when its training model was captured.

If we are to compare it to a junior developer, it'd be someone who suffered a traumatic brain injury just after leaving college, which prevents them from ever learning anything new, makes them unaware that they can't learn, and incapable of realising when they don't know something, makes them unable to reason or comprehend what they are saying, and causes them to suffer from verbal diarrhoea and excessive sycophancy.

Now, such a tragically brain damaged individual might look like the ideal worker to the average CEO, but I definitely wouldn't want them anywhere near my code.