If they implement something with a not-so-great approach, they'll keep adding workarounds or redundant code every time they run into limitations later.
If you tell them the code is slow, they'll try to add optimized fast paths (more code), specialized routines (more code), custom data structures (even more code). And then add fractally more code to patch up all the problems that code has created.
If you complain it's buggy, you can have 10 bespoke tests for every bug. Plus a new mocking framework created every time the last one turns out to be unfit for purpose.
If you ask to unify the duplication, it'll say "No problem, here's a brand new metamock abstract adapter framework that has a superset of all feature sets, plus two new metamock drivers for the older and the newer code! Let me know if you want me to write tests for the new adapters."
But I can see the carnage with offshoring+LLM, or "most employees", including so call software engineer + LLM.
You need to be technical, have good communication skills, have big picture vision, be organized, etc. If you are a staff level engineer, you basically feel like you don’t need anyone else.
OTOH i have been seeing even fairly technical engineering managers struggle because they can’t get the LLMs to execute because they don’t know how to ask it what to do.
You need code to get it to generate proper code.
Nevermind the fact that it only migrated 3 out of 5 duplicated sections, and hasn’t deleted any now-dead code.
You need to do this when coding manually as well, but the speed at which AI tools can output bad code means it's so much more important.
I think programming is giving people a false impression on how intelligent the models are, programmers are meant to be smart right so being able to code means the AI must be super smart. But programmers also put a huge amount of their output online for free, unlike most disciplines, and it's all text based. When it comes to problem solving I still see them regularly confused by simple stuff, having to reset context to try and straighten it out. It's not a general purpose human replacement just yet.
If a human dropped a PR on me that took "several hours" to go through (10k+ lines or non-trivial changes), I'd jump in my car and drive to the office just to specifically slap them on the back of the head ffs.
It's a tool. It's a wildly effective and capable tool. I don't know how or why I have such a wildly different experience than so many that describe their experiences in a similar manner... but... nearly every time I come to the same conclusion that the input determines the output.
> If they implement something with a not-so-great approach, they'll keep adding workarounds or redundant code every time they run into limitations later.
Yes, when the prompt/instructions are overly broad and there's no set of guardrails or guidelines that indicate how things should be done... this will happen. If you're not using planning mode, skill issue. You have to get all this stuff wrapped up and sorted before the implementation begins. If the implementation ends up being done in a "not-so-great" approach - that's on you.
> If you tell them the code is slow
Whew. Ok. You don't tell it the code is slow. Do you tell your coworker "Hey, your code is slow" and expect great results? You ask it to benchmark the code and then you ask it how it might be optimized. Then you discuss those options with it (this is where you do the part from the previous paragraph, where you direct the approach so it doesn't do "no-so-great approach") until you get to a point where you like the approach and the model has shown it understands what's going on.
Then you accept the plan and let the model start work. At this point you should have essentially directed the approach and ensured that it's not doing anything stupid. It will then just execute, it'll stay within the parameters/bounds of the plan you established (unless you take it off the rails with a bunch of open ended feedback like telling it that it's buggy instead of being specific about bugs and how you expect them to be resolved).
> you can have 10 bespoke tests for every bug. Plus a new mocking framework created every time the last one turns out to be unfit for purpose.
This is an area I will agree that the models are wildly inept. Someone needs to study what it is about tests and testing environments and mocking things that just makes these things go off the rails. The solution to this is the same as the solution to the issue of it keeping digging or chasing it's tail in circles... Early in the prompt/conversation/message that sets the approach/intent/task you state your expectations for the final result. Define the output early, then describe/provide context/etc. The earlier in the prompt/conversation the "requirements" are set the more sticky they'll be.
And this is exactly the same for the tests. Either write your own tests and have the models build the feature from the test or have the model build the tests first as part of the planned output and then fill in the functionality from the pre-defined test. Be very specific about how your testing system/environment is setup and any time you run into an issue testing related have the model make a note about that and the solution in a TESTING.md document. In your AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md or whatever indicate that if the model is working with tests it should refer to the TESTING.md document for notes about the testing setup.
Personally, I focus on the functionality, get things integrated and working to the point I'm ready to push it to a staging or production (yolo) environment and _then_ have the model analyze that working system/solution/feature/whatever and write tests. Generally my notes on the testing environment to the model are something along the lines of a paragraph describing the basic testing flow/process/framework in use and how I'd like things to work.
The more you stick to convention the better off you'll be. And use planning mode.
Yes? Why don't you?
They are capable people that just didn't notice something, id I notice some telemetry and tell them "hey this is slow" they are expected to understand the reason(s).
On non-trivial tasks (like adding a new index type to a db engine, not oneshotting a landing page) I find that the time and effort required to guide an LLM and review its work can exceed the effort of implementing the code myself. Figuring out exactly what to do and how to do it is the hard part of the task. I don't find LLMs helpful in that phase - their assessments and plans are shallow and naive. They can create todo lists that seemingly check off every box, but miss the forest for the trees (and it's an extra work for me to spot these problems).
Sometimes the obvious algorithm isn't the right one, or it turns out that the requirements were wrong. When I implement it myself, I have all the details in my head, so I can discover dead-ends and immediately backtrack. But when LLM is doing the implementation, it takes much more time to spot problems in the mountains of code, and even more effort to tell when it's a genuinely a wrong approach or merely poor execution.
If I feed it what I know before solving the problem myself, I just won't know all the gotchas yet myself. I can research the problem and think about it really hard in detail to give bulletproof guidance, but that's just programming without the typing.
And that's when the models actually behave sensibly. A lot of the time they go off the rails and I feel like a babysitter instructing them "no, don't eat the crayons!", and it's my skill issue for not knowing I must have "NO eating crayons" in AGENTS.md.
It can be a tool, for specific niche problems: summarization, extraction, source-to-source translation -- if post-trained properly.
But that isn't what y'all are doing, you're engaging in "replace all the meatsacks AGI ftw" nonsense.
...Really? I think 'hey we have a lot of customers reporting the app is laggy when they do X, could you take a look' is a very reasonable thing to tell your coworker who implemented X.
Perform regular sessions dedicated to cleaning up tech debt (including docs).
Are you using plan mode? I used to experience the do a poor approach and dig issue, but with planning that seems to have gone away?
I always watch Opus work, and it is pretty good with "add code, re-read the module, realize some pre-existing code (either it wrote, or was already there) is no longer needed and delete it", even without my explicit prompts.
I wouldn't be surprised if over half my prompts start with "Why ...?", usually followed by "Nope, ... instead”
Maybe the occasional "Fuck that you idiot, throw the whole thing out"
Generative AI.
The catch is that many judges lack the time, energy, or willingness to not only read the documents in detail, but also roll up their sleeves and dig into the arguments and cited authorities. (Some lack the skills, but those are extreme cases.) So the plausible argument (improperly and unfortunately) carries the day.
LLM use in litigation drafting is thus akin to insurgent/guerilla warfare: it take little time, energy, or thinking to create, yet orders of magnitude more to analyze and refute. (It's a species of Brandolini's Law / The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.) Thus justice suffers.
I imagine that this is analogous to the cognitive, technical, and "sub-optimal code" debt that LLM-produced code is generating and foisting upon future developers who will have to unravel it.
The same goes for coding. I have coworkers who use it to generate entire PRs. They can crank out two thousand lines of code that includes tests "proving" that it works, but may or may not actually be nonsense, in minutes. And then some poor bastard like me has to spend half a day reviewing it.
When code is written by a human that I know and trust, I can assume that they at least made reasonable, if not always correct, decisions. I can't assume that with AI, so I have to scrutinize every single line. And when it inevitably turns out that the AI has come up with some ass-backwards architecture, the burden is on me to understand it and explain why it's wrong and how to fix it to the "developer" who hasn't bothered to even read his own PR.
I'm seriously considering proposing that if you use AI to generate a PR at my company, the story points get credited to the reviewer.
Or you use YOUR LLM to review the PR :D
...and wtf, you get "credited" story points for finishing tasks? That sounds completely insane.
Correct, and this of course extends past just laws, into the whole scope of rules and regulations described in human languages. It will by its nature imply things that aren't explicitly stated nor can be derived with certainty, just because they're very plausible. And those implications can be wrong.
Now I've had decent success with having LLMs then review these LLM-generated texts to flag such occurences where things aren't directly supported by the source material. But human review is still necessary.
The cases I've been dealing with are also based on relatively small sets of regulations compared the scope of the law involved with many legal cases. So I imagine that in the domain you're working on, much more needs flagging.
Possible. It also suffers when majority simply can not afford proper representation
Reasonable tasks need to be converted into formal logic, calculated and computed like a standard evaluation, and then translated back into english or language of choice.
LLMs are being used to think when really they should be the interpret and render steps with something more deterministic in the middle.
Translate -> Reason -> Store to Database. Rinse Repeat. Now the context can call from the database of facts.
And you will find many more by reading (or subscribing to the RSS feed of) the Volokh Conspiracy blog's "AI in Court" tag: https://reason.com/category/law/ai-in-court/
If the first category, there have been plenty of examples that have even made their way onto the HN front page in the last half year or so. There have even been instances of judges using LLMs to draft orders containing confabulated authorities.
I find LLMs at present work best as autocomplete -
The chunks of code are small and can be carefully reviewed at the point of writing
Claude normally gets it right (though sometimes horribly wrong) - this is easier to catch in autocomplete
That way they mostly work as designed and the burden on humans is completely manageable, plus you end up with a good understanding of the code generated. They make mistakes I'd say 30% of the time or so when autocompleting, which is significant (mistakes not necessarily being bugs but ugly code, slow code, duplicate code or incorrect code.
Having the AI produce the majority of the code (in chats or with agents) takes lots of time to plan and babysit, and is harder to review, maintain and diagnose; it doesn't seem like much of a performance boost, unless you're producing code that is already in the training data and just want to ignore the licensing of the original code.
Why isn't requirements testing automated? Benchmarking the speed isn't rocket science. At worst a nightly build should run a benchmark and log it so you can find any anomalies.
If you are using an LLM via a harness like claude.ai, chatgpt.com, Claude Code, Windsurf, Cursor, Excel Claude plug-in, etc... then you are not using an LLM, you are using something more, correct?
An example I keep hearing is "LLMs have no memory/understanding of time so ___" - but, agents have various levels of memory.
I keep trying to explain this in meetings, and in rando comments. If I am not way off-base here, then what should be the term, or terms, be? LLM-based agents?
You always need a harness of some kind to interact with an LLM. Normal web APIs (especially for hosted commercial systems) wrapped around LLMs are non-minimal harnesses, that have built in tools, interpretation of tool calls, application of what is exposed in local toolchains as “prompt templates” to transform the context structure in the API call into a prompt (in some cases even supporting managing some of the conversation state that is used to construct the prompt on the backend.)
> If you are using an LLM via a harness like claude.ai, chatgpt.com, Claude Code, Windsurf, Cursor, Excel Claude plug-in, etc... then you are not using an LLM, you are using something more, correct?
You are essentially always using something more than an LLM (unless “you” are the person writing the whole software stack, and the only thing you are consuming is the model weights, or arguably a truly minimal harness that just takes setting and a prompt that is not transformed in any way before tokenization, and returns the result after no transformations or filtering other than mapping back from tokens to text.)
But, yes, if you are using an elaborate frontend of the type you enumerate (whether web or CLI or something else), you are probably using substantially more stuff on top of the LLM than if you are using the providers web API.
However, they just look at the whole thing as "the LLM," which carries specific baggage. If we could all spread the knowledge of what is actually going on to the wider public, it would make my meetings easier, and prevent many very smart folks who are not practitioners from saying inaccurate stuff.
- LLM = the model itself (stateless, no tools, just text in/text out) - LLM + system prompt + conversation history = chatbot (what most people interact with via ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) - LLM + tools + memory + orchestration = agent (can take actions, persist state, use APIs)
When someone says "LLMs have no memory" they're correct about the raw model, but Claude Code or Cursor are agents - they have context, tool access, and can maintain state across interactions.
The industry seems to be settling on "agentic system" or just "agent" for that last category, and "chatbot" or "assistant" for the middle one. The confusion comes from product names (ChatGPT, Claude) blurring these boundaries - people say "LLM" when they mean the whole stack.
This is an important distinction because if they can execute the code they can test it themselves and iterate on it until it works.
The ChatGPT and Claude chatbot consumer apps do actually have this ability now so they technically class as "coding agents", but Claude Code and Codex CLI are more obvious examples as that's their key defining feature, not a hidden capability that many people haven't spotted yet.
Pretty much. I've been advocating this for a while. For automation you need intent, and for comparison you need measurement. Blast radius/risk profile is also important to understand how much you need to cover upfront.
The Author mentions evaluations, which in this context are often called AI evals [1] and one thing I'd love to see is those evals become a common language of actually provable user stories instead of there being a disconnect between different types of roles, e.g. a scientist, a business guy and a software developer.
The more we can speak a common language and easily write and maintain these no matter which background we have, the easier it'll be to collaborate and empower people and to move fast without losing control.
- [1] https://ai-evals.io/ (or the practical repo: https://github.com/Alexhans/eval-ception )
They just write code that is (semantically) similar to code (clusters) seen in its training data, and which haven't been fenced off by RLHF / RLVR.
This isn't that hard to remember, and is a correct enough simplification of what generative LLMs actually do, without resorting to simplistic or incorrect metaphors.
We are building everything right now with LLM agents as a primary user in mind and one of our principles is “hallucination driven development”. If LLMs hallucinate an interface to your product regularly, that is a desire path and you should create that interface.
We stubbornly use the same language to refer to all software development, regardless of the task being solved. This lets us all be a part of the same community, but is also a source of misunderstanding.
Some of us are prone to not thinking about things in terms of what they are, and taking the shortcut of looking at industry leaders to tell us what we should think.
These guys consistently, in lockstep, talk about intelligent agents solving development tasks. Predominately using the same abstract language that gives us an illusion of unity. This is bound to make those of us solving the common problems believe that the industry is done.
"Plausible" sounds like the right word to me. (It would be a mistake to digress into these features of LLMs in an article where it isn't needed.)
The trouble of course is that similar/plausible isn't good enough unless the LLM has seen enough similar-but-different training samples to refine it's notion of similarity to the point where it captures the differences that are critical in a given case.
I'd rather just characterize it as a lack of reasoning, since "add more data" can't be the solution to a world full of infinite variety. You can keep playing whack a mole to add more data to fix each failure, and I suppose it's an interesting experiment to see how far that will get you, but in the end the LLM is always going to be brittle and susceptible to stupid failure cases if it doesn't have the reasoning capability to fully analyze problems it was not trained on.
My own experience using Claude Code and similar tools tells me that "hidden requirements" could include:
* Make sure DESIGN.md is up to date
* Write/update tests after changing source, and make sure they pass
* Add integration test, not only unit tests that mock everything
* Don't refactor code that is unrelated to the current task
...
These are not even project/language specific instructions. They are usually considered common sense/good practice in software engineering, yet I sometimes had to almost beg coding agents to follow them. (You want to know how many times I have to emphasize don't use "any" in a TypeScript codebase?)
People should just admit it's a limitation of these coding tools, and we can still have a meaningful discussion.
An interesting example of the training data overriding the context.
I have the feeling that LLMs are effectively running on dream logic, and everything we've done to make them reason properly is insufficient to bring them up to human level.
What they lack is multi turn long walk goal functions — which is being solved to some degree by agents.
Sure, he could have submitted a ill-considered 3800 line PR five years ago, but it would have taken him at least a week and there probably would have been opportunities to submit smaller chunks along the way or discuss the approach.
I think we’re going to see a lot of the systems we depend on fail a lot more often. You’d often see an ATM or flight staus screen have a BSOD - I think we’re going to see that kind of thing everywhere soon.
I see current expectations that technical debt doesn't matter. The current tools embrace superficial understand. These tools to paper over the debt. There is no need for deeper understanding of the problem or solution. The tools take care of it behind the scenes.
But people want an AI that is objective and right. HN is where people who know the distinction hang out, but it’s not what the layperson things they are getting when they use this miraculous super hyped tool that everybody is raving about?
It seems to me that it's all a matter of company culture, as it has always been, not AI. Those that tolerate bad code will continue to tolerate it, at their peril.
LLMs can generate queries, transformations, or even Spark jobs that look reasonable but if the underlying data contracts, schema expectations, or evaluation criteria aren’t defined, you end up with something that looks correct but is semantically wrong.
In practice, the teams that get the most value from AI-assisted development tend to have: clearly defined datasets reproducible data pipelines well-defined outputs / metrics Once those pieces are in place, AI becomes much more useful because it’s operating inside a structured system instead of guessing context. That’s also why there’s been a lot of interest lately in lakehouse-style platforms that combine data engineering, analytics, and AI workflows in one place (e.g. platforms like IOMETE).
When the data layer is structured and reproducible, AI tooling becomes far more reliable. Curious if others here have seen the same pattern when using LLMs for data engineering or analytics work.
I've asked it to do why harder things so I thought it'd easily one-shot this but for some reason it absolutely ate it on this task. I tried to re-prompt it several times but it kept digging a hole for itself, adding more and more in-line javascript and backend code (and not even cleaning up the old code).
It's hard to appreciate how unintuitive the failure modes are. It can do things probably only a handful of specialists can do but it can also critical fail on what is a straightforward junior programming task.
Traditional API contracts assume a human reads docs and writes code once. But when agents are calling agents, the "contract" needs to be machine-verifiable in real-time.
The pattern I've seen work: explicit acceptance criteria in API responses themselves. Not just status codes, but structured metadata: "This response meets JSON Schema v2.1, latency was 180ms, data freshness is 3 seconds."
Lets the calling agent programmatically verify "did I get what I paid for?" without human intervention. The measurement problem becomes the automation problem.
Similar to how distributed systems moved from "hope it works" to explicit SLOs and circuit breakers. Agents need that, but at the individual request level.
Humans would execute that code and validate it. From plausible it'd becomes hey, it does this and this is what I want. LLMs skip that part, they really have no understanding other than the statistical patterns they infer from their training and they really don't need any for what they are.
It's better to describe what you can do that LLMs currently can't.
What a shame your human reasoning and "true understanding" led you astray here.
Anything they happen to get "correct" is the result of probability applied to their large training database.
Being wrong will always be not only possible but also likely any time you ask for something that is not well represented in it's training data. The user has no way to know if this is the case so they are basically flying blind and hoping for the best.
Relying on an LLM for anything "serious" is a liability issue waiting to happen.
For example, let's try a simple experiment. I'll generate a random UUID:
> uuidgen 44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece
Now it is extremely unlikely that such a UUID is in the training set.
Now I'll use OpenCode with "Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct" with this prompt: "Generate a single Python file that prints out the following UUID: "44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece". Just generate one file."
It generates a Python file containing 'print("44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece")'. Now this is a very simple task (with a 480B model), but it solves a problem that is not in the training data, because it is a generalisation over similar but different problems in the training data.
Almost every programming task is, at some level of abstraction, and with different levels of complexity, an instance of solving a more general type of problem, where there will be multiple examples of different solutions to that same general type of problem in the training set. So you can get a very long way with Transformer model generalisations.
If you've made a significant investment in human capital, you're even more likely to protect it now and prevent posting valuable stuff on the web.
This means an LLM can autogenerated millions of code problem prompts, attempt millions of solutions (both working and non-working), and from the working solutions, penalize answers that have poor performance. The resulting synthetic dataset can then be used as a finetuning dataset.
There are now reinforcement finetuning techniques that have not been incorporated into the existing slate of LLMs that will enable finetuning them for both plausibility AND performance with a lot of gray area (like readability, conciseness, etc) in between.
What we are observing now is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
If Im the govt, Id be foaming at the mouth - those projects that used to require enormous funding now will supposedly require much less.
Hmmm, what to do? Oh I know. Lets invest in Digital ID-like projects. Fun.
I don't use a planner though, I have my own workflow setup to do this (since it requires context isolated agents to fix tests and fix code during differential testing). If the planner somehow added broad test coverage and a performance feedback loop (or even just very aggressive well known optimizations), it might work.
Feels like an extremely high effort hit piece, even though I know it’s not.
Claude: No, but if you hum a few bars I can fake it!
Except "faking it" turns out to be good enough, especially if you can fake it at speed and get feedback as to whether it works. You can then just hillclimb your way to an acceptable solution.
The more frequently you can verify correctness in some automated way the more likely the overall solution will be correct.
I’ve found that with good enough acceptance criteria (both positive and negative) it’s usually sufficient for agents to complete one off tasks without a human making a lot of changes. Essentially, if you’re willing to give up maintainability and other related properties, this works fairly well.
I’ve yet to find agents good enough to generate code that needs to be maintained long term without a ton of human feedback or manual code changes.
Just like you can't develop musical taste without writing and listening to a lot of music, you can't teach your gut how to architect good code without putting in the effort.
Want to learn how to 10x your coding? Read design patterns, read and write a lot of code by hand, review PRs, hit stumbling blocks and learn.
I noticed the other day how I review AI code in literally seconds. You just develop a knack for filtering out the noise and zooming in on the complex parts.
There are no shortcuts to developing skill and taste.
You've just settled for hackathon standards and told yourself it's okay because you're using AI.
Everyone with experience should know that even thorough code reviews only catch stylistic issues, glaring errors, and the most obvious design deficiencies. The only time new code is truly thought about is as it's being written.
[0]: https://giancarlostoro.com/introducing-guardrails-a-new-codi...
Claude code uses primarily different "pathways" in Anthropic LLMs that were not post-trained with RLHF, but rather with RLVF (reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards).
So, his point about code being produced to please the user isn't valid from where I am sitting.
No exaggeration it floundered for an hour before it started to look right.
It's really not good at tasks it has not seen before.
Given a harness that allows the model to validate the result of its program visually, and given the models are capable of using this harness to self correct (which isn't yet consistently true), then you're in a situation where in that hour you are free to do some other work.
A dishwasher might take 3 hours to do for what a human could do in 30 minutes, but they're still very useful because the machine's labor is cheaper than human labor.
TBH I would have just rendered a font glyph, or failing that, grabbed an image.
Drawing it with vector graphics programmatically is very hard, but a decent programmer would and should push back on that.
I think some industries with mostly proprietary code will be a bit disappointing to use AI within.
Opus would probably do better though.
It basically just re-created the wikipedia article fleur-de-lis, which I'm not sure proves anything beyond "you have to know how to use LLMs"
Break the job into microtasks, ask for one petal as a pair of cubic Beziers with explicit numeric control points, render that snippet locally with a simple rasterizer, then iterate on the numbers. If determinism matters accept the tradeoff of writing a small generator using a geometry library like Cairo or a bezier solver so you get reproducible coordinates instead of watching the model flounder for an hour.
Beyond the fact that it was "correct" in the same way the author of the article talked about, there was absolutely bizarre shit in there. As an example, multiple times it tried to import modules that didn't exist. It noticed this when tests failed, and instead of figuring out the import problem it add a fucking try/except around the import and did some goofy Python shenanigans to make it "work".
Interesting shortcoming, really shows how weak the reasoning is.
Of course, this problem is more general than just improving the output of LLM coding tools
I find Claude Code style plan mode to be a bit restrictive for me personally, but I’ve found that creating a plan doc and then collaboratively iterating on it with an LLM to be helpful here.
I don’t really find it much different than the scoping I’d need to do before handing off some work to a more junior engineer.
Hey thats why i built plannotator: https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotator
I like staying within Claude Code for orchestrating its plan mode, but I needed a better way to actually review the plan, address certain parts, see plan diffs, etc all in a better visual way. The hooks system through permissionrequest:exitplanmode keep this fairly ergonomic.
see it in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_AT7cEN_9I
Write a lambda that takes an S3 PUT event and inserts the rows of a comma separated file into a Postgres database.
Naive implementation: download the file from s3 and do a bulk insert - it would have taken 20 minutes and what Claude did at first.
I had to tell it to use the AWS sql extension to Postgres that will load a file directly from S3 into a table. It took 20 seconds.
I treat coding agents like junior developers.
In my case, in consulting (cloud + app dev), I just start the AGENTS.md file with a summary of the contract (the SOW), my architectural diagram and the transcript of my design review with the customer.
The deeper issue is that "efficient ingest" depends heavily on context that's implicit in your setup: file sizes, partitioning, schema evolution expectations, downstream consumers. A Lambda doing direct S3-to-Postgres import is fine for small/occasional files, but if you're dealing with high-volume event-driven ingestion you'll hit connection pool pressure fast on RDS. At that point the conversation shifts to something like a queue buffer or moving toward a proper staging layer (S3 → Redshift/Snowflake/Databricks with native COPY or autoloader). The LLM won't surface that tradeoff unless you explicitly bring it up. It optimizes for the stated task, not for the unstated architectural constraints.
So in my other case, the whole thing was
Web crawler (internal customer website) using Playwrite -> S3 -> SNS -> SQS -> Lambda (embed with Bedrock) -> S3 Vector Store.
Similar to what you said, I ran into Bedrock embedding service limits. Then once I told it that, it knew how to adjust the lambda concurrency limits. Of course I had to tell it to also adjust the sqs poller so messages wouldn’t be backed up in flight, then go to the DLQ without ever being processed.
Gemini seems to try to get a lot of information upfront with questions and plans but people are famously bad at knowing what they want.
Maybe it should build a series of prototypes and spikes to check? If making code is cheap then why not?
What I've found when doing exactly this, is that the cost of the initial code makes me hesitant to throw it away. A better workflow I've been using is instead to iterate on very detailed planning documents written in markdown and repeatedly iterating on that instead (like, sometimes 50+ times for a complex app). It's really quite amazing how much that helps. It can lead to a design doc that is good enough that I can turn the agent loose on implementation and get decent results. Best results are still with guidance throughout, but I have never once regretted hammering out a very detailed planning document. I have many times regretted keeping code (or throwing code away).
Expecting an AI do to a good job vibe-coding a Sqllite clone over a few weekends just isn't realistic. Despite that, it's useful technology.
> Now 2 case studies are not proof. I hear you! When two projects from the same methodology show the same gap, the next step is to test whether similar effects appear in the broader population. The studies below use mixed methods to reduce our single-sample bias.
Sometimes good software is good due to a long history of hard-earned wins.
AI can help you get to an implementation faster. But it cannot magically summon up a battle-hardened solution. That requires going through some battles.
Great software takes time.
It's probably a good idea to improve your test suite first, to preserve correctness.
I don't always write correct code, either. My code sure as hell is plausible but it might still contain subtle bugs every now and then.
In other words: 100% correctness was never the bar LLMs need to pass. They just need to come close enough.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47280645
It is more about LLMs helping me understand the problem than giving me over engineered cookie cutter solutions.
Someone (with deep pockets to bear the token costs) should let Claude run for 26 months to have it optimize its Rust code base iteratively towards equal benchmarks. Would be an interesting experiment.
The article points out the general issue when discussing LLMs: audience and subject matter. We mostly discuss anecdotally about interactions and results. We really need much more data, more projects to succeed with LLMs or to fail with them - or to linger in a state of ignorance, sunk-cost fallacy and supressed resignation. I expect the latter will remain the standard case that we do not hear about - the part of the iceberg that is underwater, mostly existing within the corporate world or in private GitHubs, a case that is true with LLMs and without them.
In my experience, 'Senior Software Engineer' has NO general meaning. It's a title to be awarded for each participation in a project/product over and over again. The same goes for the claim: "Me, Senior SWE treat LLMs as Junior SWE, and I am 10x more productive." Imagine me facepalming every time.
I suspect performance is not the only problem with the codebase though.
idk what to say, just because it's rust doesn't mean it's performant, or that you asked for it to be performant.
yes, llms can produce bad code, they can also produce good code, just like people
Over time, you develop a feel for which human coders tend to be consistently "good" or "bad". And you can eliminate the "bad".
With an LLM, output quality is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. It varies based on what you ask and what is in it's training data --- which you have no way to examine in advance.
You can't fire an LLM for producing bad code. If you could, you would have to fire them all because they all do it in an unpredictable manner.
you can make horrible images with photoshop that doesn't make photoshop bad
They are buying a service. As long as the service 'works' they do not care about the other stuff. But they will hold you liable when things go wrong.
The only caveat is highly regulated stuff, where they actually care very much.
Just copy and paste from an open source relational db repo
Easy. And more accurate!
I have had similar experiences, and I read over and over others experiences like this.
A powerful tool...
https://github.com/fugue-labs/gollem/blob/main/ext/codetool/...
Same experience, but the hype bros do only need a shiny screengrab to proclaim the age of "gatekeeping" SWE is over to get their click fix from the unknowingly masses.
Cherry picked AI fail for upvotes. Which you’ll get plenty of here an on Reddit from those too lazy to go and take a look for themselves.
Using Codex or Claude to write and optimize high performance code is a game changer. Try optimizing cuda using nsys, for example. It’ll blow your lazy little brain.
Related:
- <http://archive.today/2026.03.07-020941/https://lr0.org/blog/...> (I'm not consulting an LLM...)
- <https://web.archive.org/web/20241021113145/https://slopwatch...>
