As someone whose job description has expanded to include: "Prepare offers for specialized IT systems including server hardware", I have this to say:
-
As someone whose job description has expanded to include: "Prepare offers for specialized IT systems including server hardware", I have this to say:
The #LLM bubble cannot burst soon enough.
@juergen_hubert The bubble might not burst, though, because it's not a bubble. Coding with coding agents based on LLMs is just so much faster that there will be no going back.
-
As someone whose job description has expanded to include: "Prepare offers for specialized IT systems including server hardware", I have this to say:
The #LLM bubble cannot burst soon enough.
@juergen_hubert I think of it less as a bubble burst and more as bee colony collapse
best joke I've heard so far is "Obviously senior engineers can be harvested in the orchard".
-
@juergen_hubert The bubble might not burst, though, because it's not a bubble. Coding with coding agents based on LLMs is just so much faster that there will be no going back.
It may be "faster", but do the people who implement it truly have the same process knowledge of the code as people who do it manually?
-
It may be "faster", but do the people who implement it truly have the same process knowledge of the code as people who do it manually?
@juergen_hubert Do they need it, if all they do is ask the LLM interface to adjust, fix or rewrite it?
-
@juergen_hubert Do they need it, if all they do is ask the LLM interface to adjust, fix or rewrite it?
If they are okay with a code base that is increasingly incomprehensible to its developers, sure. Though I only recommend that if the software in question won't be in use after a few years.
-
If they are okay with a code base that is increasingly incomprehensible to its developers, sure. Though I only recommend that if the software in question won't be in use after a few years.
@juergen_hubert It's not incomprehensible to the developers, there's just another layer between the human and the machine code. A coding LLM is basically just the logical extension of the concept of a compiler. Most people have also never read machine code, and why would they, when compilers exist?
-
@juergen_hubert It's not incomprehensible to the developers, there's just another layer between the human and the machine code. A coding LLM is basically just the logical extension of the concept of a compiler. Most people have also never read machine code, and why would they, when compilers exist?
The difference is that compilers follow deterministic processes that can be understood by humans if the need arises (and the need _does_ arise when you deal with ancient legacy code).
LLM systems, by their very nature, are _stochastic_ processes. They might give the right answer and the right code, but you cannot rule out that they give the wrong answer and buggy code, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that. And then a human has to figure out what went wrong, and if they do not understand how the code was generated, they are already off to a bad start.
-
The difference is that compilers follow deterministic processes that can be understood by humans if the need arises (and the need _does_ arise when you deal with ancient legacy code).
LLM systems, by their very nature, are _stochastic_ processes. They might give the right answer and the right code, but you cannot rule out that they give the wrong answer and buggy code, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that. And then a human has to figure out what went wrong, and if they do not understand how the code was generated, they are already off to a bad start.
@juergen_hubert That is simply not what is happening. The LLMs are faster at writing AND debugging than any human could ever be. I suggest you try it with something like Opencode and an LLM of your choice, or with Claude Code for a simple start.
-
@juergen_hubert That is simply not what is happening. The LLMs are faster at writing AND debugging than any human could ever be. I suggest you try it with something like Opencode and an LLM of your choice, or with Claude Code for a simple start.
So how _did_ they solve the stochastic problem of LLMs?
-
So how _did_ they solve the stochastic problem of LLMs?
@juergen_hubert They don't bother, they just do the same tests you'd do with any human-written code. And if there's an issue, ask the LLM to fix it. Might take a few attempts, of course. Just like with any human programmer.
-
@juergen_hubert They don't bother, they just do the same tests you'd do with any human-written code. And if there's an issue, ask the LLM to fix it. Might take a few attempts, of course. Just like with any human programmer.
A human _software developer_ (not a "programmer") can think about the process, and analyze what went wrong.
An LLM, by definition, cannot "think". There won't be any lessons learned, and no institutional knowledge.
-
A human _software developer_ (not a "programmer") can think about the process, and analyze what went wrong.
An LLM, by definition, cannot "think". There won't be any lessons learned, and no institutional knowledge.
@juergen_hubert The developer isn't really replaced by the LLMs yet. The programmer absolutely is.
-
@juergen_hubert The bubble might not burst, though, because it's not a bubble. Coding with coding agents based on LLMs is just so much faster that there will be no going back.
Ingo Heinscher That is not what the developers I've worked with are saying. Lines of code can be produced faster than ever, but software engineering isn't about the number of lines of code produced, but about what those lines do.
-
Ingo Heinscher That is not what the developers I've worked with are saying. Lines of code can be produced faster than ever, but software engineering isn't about the number of lines of code produced, but about what those lines do.
@kichae I see no contradiction to what I wrote. Coding agents are so far a massive productivity increase, not more, not less. But that's not a bubble. That's progress.
-
@juergen_hubert The developer isn't really replaced by the LLMs yet. The programmer absolutely is.
And how many IT companies still employ "programmers" as opposed to software developers?
-
And how many IT companies still employ "programmers" as opposed to software developers?
@juergen_hubert I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you believe coding agents are a productivity leap, or do you not?
-
@juergen_hubert I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you believe coding agents are a productivity leap, or do you not?
They might be a productivity leap for small, fairly standardized, self-contained projects, but their usefulness decreased geometrically with project complexity.
-
They might be a productivity leap for small, fairly standardized, self-contained projects, but their usefulness decreased geometrically with project complexity.
@juergen_hubert Now you are grasping for straws.
This technology is phenomenal and very useful. Now, not every use is maybe a wise allocation of resources. The talk of a "bubble" might be about some of the companies, but the AI technology itself is clearly extremely useful even in its present, rather early stage. -
@juergen_hubert Now you are grasping for straws.
This technology is phenomenal and very useful. Now, not every use is maybe a wise allocation of resources. The talk of a "bubble" might be about some of the companies, but the AI technology itself is clearly extremely useful even in its present, rather early stage.@juergen_hubert That said: Hardware prices will go down again as scientists figure out more efficient ways to implement AI, and hardware better suited to the tasks becomes widely available.
-
@juergen_hubert Now you are grasping for straws.
This technology is phenomenal and very useful. Now, not every use is maybe a wise allocation of resources. The talk of a "bubble" might be about some of the companies, but the AI technology itself is clearly extremely useful even in its present, rather early stage.Are there any scientific papers that quantify how useful they are in actual software development practice?
