In fact, not many people know that these days, but a human doing a thing by bashing their head against it, often tends to improve. My hand-written code is my best yet. My breadth of knowledge, wider than ever.
replyIn fact, it's better not to generate it imo. Like you said the quality is higher, and by the time I get done reviewing the LLM's output I haven't really saved time over just doing it myself. LLMs are only useful for things you can verify extremely quickly (like a short script), or for things where you don't care about the quality.
replyTurns out you internalize it when you write it and refactor it with iteration
replyBut the attraction of LLM code is not that you get quality.
replyThe selling point is that you know have a quality Vs time tradeoff that is a lot better than you used to have.
I can spend 10 seconds typing out a prompt that will generate ok code.
Before a couple of years ago, it might have taken me an hour to type out and debug that code.
Sure, if you prefer low quality go ahead. Many people have always preferred low quality. Many people prefer to eat junk.
I also genuinely believe that time tradeoff doesn’t matter.
reply> Before a couple of years ago, it might have taken me an hour to type out and debug that code.
Are you not running and testing your code?
It's just naive to say you are always going for quality. Everyone has constraints in money and time that they need to think about.
reply> Are you not running and testing your code?
Why would you think that?
> Why would you think that?
replyBecause you’re claiming to not debug, and that you’ve gone from 1 hour to 10 seconds. I can only go off of what you tell me here.