Comment by zephyreon

Comment by zephyreon 4 days ago

The last bit

> supervised by a human who occasionally knew what he was doing.

seems in jest but I could be wrong. If omitted or flagged as actual sarcasm I would feel a lot better about the project overall. As long as you’re auditing the LLM’s outputs and doing a decent code review I think it’s reasonable to trust this tool during incidents.

I’ll admit I did go straight to the end of the readme to look for this exact statement. I appreciate they chose to disclose.

pranshuparmar 4 days ago

Thank you, yes I added it in jest and still keeping it for sometime. It was always meant to be removed in future.

Reply View 0 replies

otabdeveloper4 4 days ago

If you're capable of auditing the LLM’s outputs and doing a decent code review then you don't need an LLM.

Reply View 13 replies

Retr0id 4 days ago

Nobody who was writing code before LLMs existed "needs" an LLM, but they can still be handy. Procfs parsing trivialities are the kind of thing LLMs are good at, although apparently it still takes a human to say "why not using an existing library that solves this, like https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/prometheus/procfs"

Reply View | 6 replies
- Jach 4 days ago
  
  Sometimes LLMs will give a "why not..." or just mention something related, that's how I found out about https://recoll.org/ and https://www.ventoy.net/ But people should probably more often explicitly prompt them to suggest alternatives before diving in to produce something new...
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- otabdeveloper4 4 days ago
  
  > Procfs parsing trivialities are the kind of thing LLMs are good at
  Have you tried it? Procfs trivialities is exactly the kind of thing where an LLM will hallucinate something plausible-looking.
  Fixing LLM hallucinations takes more work and time than just reading manpages and writing code yourself.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  Retr0id 4 days ago
  
  Claude code can read manpages too
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
littlestymaar 4 days ago

Neither do you need and IDE, syntax highlighting or third party libraries, yet you use all of them.
There's nothing wrong for a software engineer about using LLMs as an additional tool in his toolbox. The problem arises when people stops doing software engineering because they believe the LLM is doing the engineering for them.

Reply View | 3 replies
- otabdeveloper4 4 days ago
  
  I don't use IDEs that require more time and effort investment than they save.
  You mileage may vary, though. Lots of software engineers love those time and effort tarpits.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  littlestymaar 3 days ago
  
  I don't know what “tarpit” you're talking about.
  Every IDE I've used just worked out of the box, be it Visual Studio, Eclipse, or anything using the language server protocol.
  Having the ability to have things like method auto-completion, go-to-definition and symbol renaming is a net productivity gain from the minute you start using it and I couldn't imagine this being a controversial take in 2025…
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  otabdeveloper4 a day ago
  
  > I don't know what “tarpit” you're talking about.
  Really? You don't know software developers that would rather futz around with editor configs and tooling and libraries and etc, etc, all day every day instead of actually shipping the boring code?
  You must be working in a different industry.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
RickyLahey 4 days ago

right, we don't need a lot of things, yet here we are

Reply View | 0 replies
saidnooneever 4 days ago

need and can use are different things.

Reply View | 0 replies