Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

leftpaddotpy@hachyderm.ioL

leftpaddotpy@hachyderm.io

@leftpaddotpy@hachyderm.io
About
Posts
1
Topics
0
Shares
0
Groups
0
Followers
0
Following
0

View Original

Posts

Recent Best Controversial

  • If you replace a junior with #LLM and make the senior review output, the reviewer is now scanning for rare but catastrophic errors scattered across a much larger output surface due to LLM "productivity."
    leftpaddotpy@hachyderm.ioL leftpaddotpy@hachyderm.io

    @pseudonym i think it depends on the domain. like, code review is not seriously expected to catch all bugs; it's merely a step in a process. if you need absolute correctness (most don't!) then formal methods, a shockingly rare practice in the most critical industries, might be the right choice.

    a stronger argument would be "the bugs are less obvious" though i think that too can be fought with observability. but that strategy only works well in application code, i.e. code which "makes money" (a notion which should be challenged, but that's another issue), rather than infra layer stuff with higher correctness needs and worse observability. and you know how the old saying goes: "if the code is good it's probably not making money". idk, people write slop where they already wrote slop due to the same pressures as before.

    Uncategorized llm
  • Login

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups