Interesting how he mentions LLMs have a 50% error rate, and predicts how no one will pay for a tool with such a poor rate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

In case you haven't realized that is what my first (completely irrelevant) comment exactly advocates. It may be useful with a human in the loop for well-defined tasks. Whether or not it ends up being a boon or a curse on devs remains to be seen. If you have to just sieve through 10 irrelevant bugs to find one very critical one that might be worth it (especially if the LLM can order it by priority reasonably well), could even be a nice training exercise for a more junior coder to get acquainted with the code base. Whether or not these benefits are worth the damage it is causing (nature and society wise) is of course a whole another issue.

  • source
  • parent