When it comes to LLMs, they cannot do any work that you yourself do not understand.
And even if they could how would you ever validate it if you can’t understand it.
Comment on Vibe coding service Replit deleted production database
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
I explicitly told it eleven times in ALL CAPS not to do this. I am a little worried about safety now.
Well then, that settles it, this should never have happened.
I don’t think putting complex technical info in front of non technical people like this is a good idea. When it comes to LLMs, they cannot do any work that you yourself do not understand.
That goes for math, coding, health advice, etc.
If you don’t understand then you don’t know what they’re doing wrong. They’re helpful tools but only in this context.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 11 hours ago
vxx@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
What are they helpfuls tools for then? A study showed that they make experienced developers 19% slower.
WraithGear@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
ok so, i have large reservations with how LLM’s are used. but when used correctly they can be helpful. but where and how?
if you were to use it as a tutor, the same way you would ask a friend what a segment of code does, it will break down the code and tell you. and it will get as nity grity, and elementary school level as you weir wish without judgement, and i in what ever manner you prefer, it will recommend best practices, and will tell you why your code may not work with the understanding that it does not have the knowledge of the project you are working on. (it’s not going to know the name of the function you are trying to load, but it will recommend checking for that in trouble shooting).
it can rtfm and give you the parts you need for any thing with available documentation, and it will link to it so you can verify it, wich you should do often, just like you were taught to do with wikipedia articles.
if you ask i it for code, prepare to go through each line like a worksheet from high school to point out all the problems, wile good exercise for a practicle case, being the task you are on, it would be far better to write it yourself because you should know the particulars and scope.
also it will format your code and provide informational comments if you can’t be bothered, though it will be generic.
again, treat it correctly for its scope, not what it’s sold as by charletons.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 11 hours ago
I’m not the person you’re replying to but the one thing I’ve found them helpful for is targeted search.
I can ask it a question and then access its sources from whatever response it generates to read and review myself.
Kind of a simpler, free LexisNexis.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
One built a bunch of local search tools with MCP and that’s where I get a lot of my value out of it
RAG workflows are incredibly useful and with modern agents and tool calls work very well.
They kind of went out of style but it’s a perfect use case.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
Vibe coding you do end up spending a lot of time waiting for prompts, so I get the results of that study.
I fall pretty deep in the power user category for LLMs, so I don’t really feel that the study applies well to me, but also I acknowledge I can be biased there.
I have custom proprietary MCPs for semantic search over my code bases that lets AI do repeated graph searches on my code (imagine combining language server, ctags, networkx, and grep+fuzzy search). That is way faster than iteratively grepping and code scanning manually with a low chance of LLM errors. By the time I open GitHub code search or run ripgrep Claude has used already prioritized and listed my modules to investigate.
That tool alone with an LLM can save me half a day of research and debugging on complex tickets, which pays for an AI subscription alone. I have other internal tools to accelerate work too.
I use it to organize my JIRA tickets and plan my daily goals. I actually get Claude to do a lot of triage for me before I even start a task, which cuts the investigation phase to a few minutes on small tasks.
I use it to review all my PRs before I ask a human to look, it catches a lot of small things and can correct them, then the PR avoids the bike shedding nitpicks some reviewers love. Claude can do this, Copilot will only ever point out nitpicks, so the model makes a huge difference here. But regardless, 1 fewer review request cycle helps keep things moving.
It’s a huge boon to debugging — much faster than searching errors manually. Especially helpful on the types of errors you have to rabbit hole GitHub issue content chains to solve.
It’s very fast to get projects to MVP while following common structure/idioms, and can help write unit tests quickly for me. After the MVP stage it sucks and I go back to manually coding.
I use it to generate code snippets where documentation sucks. If you look at the ibis library in Python for example the docs are Byzantine and poorly organized. LLMs are better at finding the relevant docs than I am there. I mostly use LLM search instead of manual for doc search now.
I have a lot of custom scripts and calculators and apps that I made with it which keep me more focused on my actual work and accelerate things.
I regularly have the LLM help me write bash or python or jq scripts when I need to audit codebases for large refactors. That’s low maintenance one off work that can be easily verified but complex to write. I never remember the syntax for bash and jq even after using them for years.
I guess the short version is I tend to build tools for the AI, then let the LLM use those tools to improve and accelerate my workflows. That returns a lot of time back to me.
I do try vibe coding but end up in the same time sink traps as the study found. If the LLM is ever wrong, you save time forking the chat than trying to realign it, but it’s still likely to be slower. Repeat chats result in the same pitfalls for complex issues and bugs, so you have to abandon that state quickly.
Vibe coding small revisions can still be a bit faster and it’s great at helping me with documentation.
vxx@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Don’t you have any security concerns with sending all your code to some companies servers? My Boss wouldn’t be pleased if I send anything that’s deemed a company secrets over unencrypted channels.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
The tool isn’t returning all code, but it is sending code.
I had discussions with my CTO and security team before integrating Claude code.
I have to use Gemini in one specific workflow and Gemini had a lot of landlines for how they use your data. Anthropic was easier to understand.
Anthropic also has some guidance for running Claude Code in a container with firewall and your specified dev tools, it works but that’s not my area of expertise.
The container doesn’t solve all the issues like using remote servers, but it does let you restrict what files and network requests Claude can access (so e.g. Claude can’t read your env vars or ssh key files).
I do try local LLMs but they’re not there yet on my machine for most use cases. Gemma 3n is decent if you need small model performance and tool calls, phi4 works but isn’t thinking (the thinking variants are awful), and I’m exploring dream coder and diffusion models. R1 is still one of the best local models but frequently overthinks, even the new release. Context window is the largest limiting factor I find locally.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
This baffles me. How can anyone see AI function in the wild and not conclude 1) it has no conscience, 2) it’s free to do whatever it’s empowered to do if it wants and 3) at some level its behavior is pseudorandom and/or probabilistic? We’re figuratively rolling dice with this stuff.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
It’s incredible that it works, it’s incredible what just encoding language can do, but it is not a rational thinking system.
I don’t think most people care about the proverbial man behind the curtain, it talks like a human so it must be smart like a human.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Yikes. Have those people… talked to other people before?
fishy@lemmy.today 13 hours ago
Smart is a relative term lol.
A stupid human is still smart when compared to a jellyfish. That said, anybody who comes away from interactions with LLM’s and thinks they’re smart is only slightly more intelligent than a jellyfish.
sunbytes@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Yes, and they were all as smart at humans. ;)
So mostly average but some absolute thickos too.