It's obvious that you have absolutely no experience of your own here - yet you try to *splain to someone who has.

Good work. Just useless.

@nullpo

Sure...

Care to share next week's Powerball numbers while you're at it?

No, you're trying to splain me - who just wrote what my experiences (actual ones, not gut feelings) that LLMs are quite useful for ~80% of the work - that the code is not possible to understand.

I'm one of the old greybeards in both software dev and cybersec. When I state that they're useful they ... are.

@nullpo

"Personsplain", that's a new one.

And the topic of my toot was neither of these two, it was LLMs

Are you trying to personsplain software development and/or cybersecurity to me?

That's ... futile

@nullpo

An important difference is that abstract programming languages are deterministic, whereas LLMs are not.

So you either spend a lot of time proofreading code nobody can explain to you, with potentially gaslighting comments, or your software gets 0wned a year later or doesn't even run in the first place.

If that's an improvement to your previous workflow, so be it.

I'm way better than the LLM at coding. It's just a thousand times faster at parts of it so why wouldn't I use it.

(I've had this argument before. At that time it was whether to be lazy and compile high level languages instead of writing everything in assembler)