22
Thoughts on coding with AI: my experience
(wiki.gardiol.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
22 points (84.4% liked)
LocalLLaMA
5579 readers
127 users here now
Welcome to LocalLLaMA! Here we discuss running and developing machine learning models at home. Lets explore cutting edge open source neural network technology together.
Get support from the community! Ask questions, share prompts, discuss benchmarks, get hyped at the latest and greatest model releases! Enjoy talking about our awesome hobby.
As ambassadors of the self-hosting machine learning community, we strive to support each other and share our enthusiasm in a positive constructive way.
Rules:
Rule 1 - No harassment or personal character attacks of community members. I.E no namecalling, no generalizing entire groups of people that make up our community, no baseless personal insults.
Rule 2 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning models to cryptocurrency. I.E no comparing the usefulness of models to that of NFTs, no comparing the resource usage required to train a model is anything close to maintaining a blockchain/ mining for crypto, no implying its just a fad/bubble that will leave people with nothing of value when it burst.
Rule 3 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning to simple text prediction algorithms. I.E statements such as "llms are basically just simple text predictions like what your phone keyboard autocorrect uses, and they're still using the same algorithms since <over 10 years ago>.
Rule 4 - No implying that models are devoid of purpose or potential for enriching peoples lives.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Very interesting article, thank you.
From my experiences with paid models at work, tests were especially insidious: I had cases where a seemingly sensible test showed up to not work at all. I was planning to push it but I got curious, and decided to "break" the feature it said it was pretending to verify. Lo and behold, test stays green. I find it especially bad because nobody loves to write tests, even less to review them, it's not easy to make them good, LLM oh so loves to churn them out, and I'm already tired reviewing the main part of the code.
As for docs, my personal take is that they may not be as good as you think. IMO it's more that we are not taught to write good docs or even to properly care about them. So I claim it's the same JS case here, just you have even less skill to evaluate it than you had with JS. Note, it's not directed at you personally more than anyone else, and I may certainly be wrong, that's just how I feel about the majority of the industry in the area of docs (even pre-AI to a big degree).
Your article spelled out some things in a nice new way for me, with an interesting new takeaway for me in context of what I want to learn (here I must especially be wary of "AI" as it can help somewhat but can also actively degrade/hinder/derail/anchor), vs. where I don't - but then if I don't do I have skills to evaluate its result and to what degree (e.g. on your example, IMO, c++ high, js medium, docs low). Thank you again!