• takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’ve seen too as I have to review it. AI produces very professionally looking bad code.

    It is so weird to explain, but that’s basically what I see.

    Before LLM I could immediately tell someone’s code is crap, now I have to spend a lot of time trying to understand what it does to reach the same conclusion.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      My honest opinion is that it’s bad because a lot of people using LLMs have no standards and push the first thing that seems to work. Be mad at who’s at the driving wheel, not the car.

      You absolutely can generate crap with agents/LLMs, and like a humans writing, the first draft will probably be subpar or maybe complete garbage. Every new session is a clean slate, that’s why putting effort in the documents guiding it is so important.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        The car analogy doesn’t work because you’re not the one making the code/driving the car. It drives itself, and you sometimes can propose some directions for it to steer.
        The problems with llm aren’t just that sometimes your shit doesn’t work or obviously bad, that’s what you’re talking about, and that’s what minimally responsible sloperators can catch. The main problem is it writes something that looks OK to a human (that’s a criteria for it) but sometimes it’s unexpectedly idiotic in random places (because not being idiotic wasn’t a criteria). You need to check way more thoroughly for it, and you can’t use normal shortcuts that help you with it. So you obviously don’t do that.