You could argue that it speeds up development by 5X or more, but then it slows down testing/verifying, code review, and in many cases it makes it impossible to review/rework by hand.
I just do what I'm told at work but even though I'm sure I'm in the minority I'm extremely skeptical that LLMs can produce any good-quality code.
Looks to me like we've just lowered the bar--by a lot--and stopped looking at the code that goes out. Every time I look into how Claude implemented something it's completely insane, with no way to refactor it or maintain it in the future.
The 10x speed up comes from the fact that we have all given up on properly reviewing each others code and we just say “meh, it will be fine, lgtm”
Amdahl's Law should be familiar to anyone with a 4y computer science/engineering degree. Why aren't they applying it to their own throughput?
- 25% planning & aligning with other teams
- 25% coding
- 25% testing/verifying
- 25% code review/rework
I'd say that thanks to LLM assistance I'm 10x faster at coding, code review/rework, and testing/verifying. (LLMs can partially automate testing/verifying too, and the code is higher quality now as well so less testing/verifying is necessary).
So that leaves us with:
- 92.5% planning & aligning with other teams
- 2.5% coding
- 2.5% testing/verifying
- 2.5% code review/rework
Obviously, that makes zero sense as a split. If you saw any organization doing that, you'd suggest having fewer teams, more silos, etc. Maybe you have designers produce code, instead of showing the designs to coders and having the coders implement it. Maybe you force all your engineers to dogfood the product that way they can identify issues themselves rather than needing QA teams to do it. And so on. so the last category, "planning & aligning with other teams", falls too.
1) because they’re not doing those others spheres of work
2) because they don’t think about the work
nor how tired they are afterwards
3) they’re proselytizing AI work as the future and
that conflicts with that vision
4) the other shoe hasn’t dropped
5) they really don’t see it
6) some people genuinely hate programming and this
helps them skip that.
Suddenly devs who were cranking out features with no interest in infrastructure are attacking giant refactors to make the code more understandable to the LLM.
Other devs are using LLMs to build themselves quality of life SDLC tools completely separate from the core code base.
Plenty of other examples of this.
Of course, the main issue is that they’re completely undebbugable now. My bash scripts used to be a sequential list of commands, now they’re 500 lines of variable laden functions.
Is my life any better? Dunno. But it’s satisfying (until there’s a bug)
Well, that means the quality actually dropped then :). Looking impressive isn't equal to quality, understandability and reliability is
A node glob() or a regexp string.replace call is probably easier to read than spaghetti shell.
And your llm might do a much better job of creating clean, readable and testable code.