Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the question of whether LLMs are useful for software engineering is not the right question at all.

The better question should be whether long-term LLM use in software will make the overall software landscape better or worse. For example, LLM use could theoretically allow "better" software engineering by reducing bugs, making coding complex interfaces easier --- but in the long run, that could also increase complexity, making the overall user experience worse because everything is going to be rebuilt on more complex software/hardware infrastructures.

And, the top 10% of coder use of LLMs could also make their software better but make 90% of the bottom-end worse due to shoddy coding. Is that an acceptable trade-off?

The problem is, if we only look at one variable, or "software engineering efficiency" measured in some operational way, we ignore the grander effects on the ecosystem, which I think will be primarily negative due to the bottom 90% effect (what people actually use will be nightmarish, even if a few large programs can be improved).



If we assume that LLMs will make the software ecosystem worse rather than better, I think we have two options:

1. Attempt to prevent LLMs from being used to write software. I can't begin to imagine how that would work at this point.

2. Figure out things we can do to try and ensure that the software ecosystem gets better rather than worse given the existence of these new tools.

I'm ready to invest my efforts in 2, personally.


I would rather not play the prisoner's dilemma at all, and focus on 1 if possible. I don't code much but when I do code or create stuff, I do with without LLMs from scratch and at least some of my code is used in production :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: