this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
576 points (98.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
20800 readers
1553 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can get decent results from AI coding models, though...
...as long as somebody who actually knows how to program is directing it. Like if you tell it what inputs/outputs you want it can write a decent function - even going so far as to comment it along the way. I've gotten O1 to write some basic web apps with Node and HTML/CSS without having to hold its hand much. But we simply don't have the training, resources, or data to get it to work on units larger than that. Ultimately it'd have to learn from large scale projects, and have the context size to be able to hold if not the entire project then significant chunks of it in context and that would require some very beefy hardware.
Generally only for small problems. Like things lower than 300 lines of code. And the problem generally can’t be a novel problem.
But that’s still pretty damn impressive for a machine.
Yeah. I'm so dang cranky about all the overselling, that how cool I think this stuff is often gets lost.
300 lines of boring code from thin air is genuinely cool, and gives me more time to tear my hair out over deployment problems.
and only if you're doing something that has been previously done and publically released
Well, not exactly. For example, for a game I was working on I asked an LLM for a mathematical formula to align 3D normals. Then I couldn't decipher what it wrote so I just asked it to write the code for me to do it. I can understand it in its code form, and it slid into my game's code just fine.
Yeah, it wasn't seamless, but that's the frustrating hype part of LLMs. They very much won't replace an actual programmer. But for me, working as the sole developer who actually knows how to code but doesn't know how to do much of the math a game requires? It's a godsend. And I guess somewhere deep in some forum somebody's written this exact formula as a code snippet, but I think it actually just converted the formula into code and that's something quite useful.
I mean, I don't think you and I disagree on the limits of LLMs here. Obviously that formula it pulled out was something published before, and of course I had to direct it. But it's these emergent solutions you can draw out of it where I find the most use. But of course, you need to actually know what you're doing both on the code side and when it comes to "talking" to the LLM, which is why it's nowhere near useful enough to empower users to code anything with some level of complexity without a developer there to guide it.