It’s unclear in LLM generated code when I’m being pedantic because it’s not exactly how I would have done it and when it’s the start of slop that should be nipped in the bud
IMO always the second one. They don’t get frusterated by pedantic reviews and they love running with anything they can see, so its extra important to audit anything that could be a pattern.
I think there’s also an argument for “when it starts to be a problem” rather than “we must be hyper vigilant at all times.” Also depends on the blast radius. If it’s just me on the project, a refactor is easier. If there are lots of devs I don’t want to break their rebases and inflight work all the time (though LLMs make this cheaper).
I get the sense that I edit and prune my LLM generated garden MUCH more than most. And it’s already a lot of time and work. And being pedantic takes time away from other coding tasks and is exhausting. Especially since the iteration seems to follow Zeno’s paradox. It gets closer and closer but rarely is “perfect” and often I don’t even know what “perfect is” so it diverges back and forth between a few similar solutions and I shout (to no one) I’m tired it is “good enough”.
I also use these tools at work where we have a compliance requirement that a second human must approve and review all code. (It existed before we used LLMs). In the before times I had a healthy respect for “they did it differently than I would have but I respect their decisions” I.e. don’t bikeshed.
Okay, sorry that’s the word I needed. How do we do better and demand higher quality while also avoiding bike shedding?
IMO always the second one. They don’t get frusterated by pedantic reviews and they love running with anything they can see, so its extra important to audit anything that could be a pattern.
score 1 · canonical
I think there’s also an argument for “when it starts to be a problem” rather than “we must be hyper vigilant at all times.” Also depends on the blast radius. If it’s just me on the project, a refactor is easier. If there are lots of devs I don’t want to break their rebases and inflight work all the time (though LLMs make this cheaper).
I get the sense that I edit and prune my LLM generated garden MUCH more than most. And it’s already a lot of time and work. And being pedantic takes time away from other coding tasks and is exhausting. Especially since the iteration seems to follow Zeno’s paradox. It gets closer and closer but rarely is “perfect” and often I don’t even know what “perfect is” so it diverges back and forth between a few similar solutions and I shout (to no one) I’m tired it is “good enough”.
I also use these tools at work where we have a compliance requirement that a second human must approve and review all code. (It existed before we used LLMs). In the before times I had a healthy respect for “they did it differently than I would have but I respect their decisions” I.e. don’t bikeshed.
Okay, sorry that’s the word I needed. How do we do better and demand higher quality while also avoiding bike shedding?
score 1 · canonical