That's true but LLMs are a massive time saver when generating unit tests and other useful things for your work, leaving you free to write what really matters.
replyHaving a LLM also generate your unit tests defeats the purpose of checking whether a LLM generated piece of code is sound.
replyThere will always need a human on the end to check if the LLM didn't hallucinate anything on it, including manually writing the unit tests.
Building useful tests are probably one of the things that LLMs are the worst at tbh. You end up with tests checking `2 * 2 == 4` and similar.
replyStop whining. LLMs are available to everyone. If you think you can do better, then go ahead and do it instead of criticizing people who are actually getting things done.
replyThis is not "getting things done", it is not a useful project. It is one of the interesting projects that one would do to show mastery of a hard technical topic (compiler), to learn, and to impress fellow programmers.
Doing it with an LLM makes it just completely useless
reply> Doing it with an LLM makes it just completely useless
replyThere can be other valid perspectives than your own.
Different people code for different reasons.
Some see it as a means to an end... "I want X as an end result and I don't care how I get it."
Others see it as an art form and something special to them; their sense of worth is tied to their knowledge and experience in something that not just anyone can do (without an AI).
OP uses an LLM because they just want the end result. You might write code for different reasons entirely. Neither is "wrong" or "useless."
[flagged]
replydeleted
replyThe whining will continue until boosters get it. If the things you're "getting done" are even remotely valuable then you can spare the brainpower to use your words.
reply[dead]
reply