undefined | Better HN

0 pointszmmmmm2mo ago0 comments

yes just using AI for code analysis is way under appreciated I think. Even the most sceptical people on using it for coding should try it out as a tool for Q&A style code interrogation as well as generating documentation. I would say it zero-shots documentation generation better than most human efforts would to the point it begs the question of whether it's worth having the documentation in the first place. Obviously it can make mistakes but I would say they are below the threshold of human mistakes from what I've seen.

0 comments

sfink2mo ago

(I haven't used AI much, so feel free to ignore me.)

This is one thing I've tried using it for, and I've found this to be very, very tricky. At first glance, it seems unbelievably good. The comments read well, they seem correct, and they even include some very non-obvious information.

But almost every time I sit down and really think about a comment that includes any of that more complex analysis, I end up discarding it. Often, it's right but it's missing the point, in a way that will lead a reader astray. It's subtle and I really ought to dig up an example, but I'm unable to find the session I'm thinking about.

This was with ChatGPT 5, fwiw. It's totally possible that other models do better. (Or even newer ChatGPT; this was very early on in 5.)

Code review is similar. It comes up with clever chains of reasoning for why something is problematic, and initially convinces me. But when I dig into it, the review comment ends up not applying.

It could also be the specific codebase I'm using this on? (It's the SpiderMonkey source.)

zmmmmmOP2mo ago

My main experience is with anthropic models.

I've had some encounters with inaccuracies but my general experience has been amazing. I've cloned completely foreign git repos, cranked up the tool and just said "I'm having this bug, give me an overview of how X and Y work" and it will create great high level conceptual outlines that mean I can drive straight in where without it I would spend a long time just flailing around.

I do think an essential skill is developing just the right level of scepticism. It's not really different to working with a human though. If a human tells me X or Y works in a certain way i always allow a small margin of possibility they are wrong.

imp0cat2mo ago

But have you actually thoroughly checked the documentation it generated? My experience suggests it can often be subtly wrong.

mcv2mo ago

They do have a knack for missing the point. Even Opus 4.5 can laser focus on the wrong thing. It does take skill and experience to interpret them correctly and set them straight when they go wrong.

Even so, for understanding what happens in a big chunk of code, they're pretty great.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse