I agree with most of the stuff in this article but I'm a bit puzzled by some of the attitudes of the author. They seem to care more about the LLM delivering code with poor accessibility than they care about the LLM delivering completely wrong answers.
The "any good developer would realize this is bad code" rings strongly as "no true developer would think the LLM's bad answer was correct". Seems like a short sighted opinion to me.
I also think you can replace "accessibility" with any number of programming meta concepts and find problems too.
How about "internationalization"? Are LLMs any good at producing code that is nicely internationalized?
Or more importantly "security". Are LLMs going to produce millions of lines of poorly secured code that people never double check? Almost assuredly.
The fact is that LLMs are prediction engines. They run off of probabilities based on the prompt and the training model. Thus, unless the training model is weighted towards cherry picked examples of excellent code, it's going to follow the masses.
And the masses write bad-to-average code mostly.
The "any good developer would realize this is bad code" rings strongly as "no true developer would think the LLM's bad answer was correct". Seems like a short sighted opinion to me.
I also think you can replace "accessibility" with any number of programming meta concepts and find problems too.
How about "internationalization"? Are LLMs any good at producing code that is nicely internationalized?
Or more importantly "security". Are LLMs going to produce millions of lines of poorly secured code that people never double check? Almost assuredly.
The fact is that LLMs are prediction engines. They run off of probabilities based on the prompt and the training model. Thus, unless the training model is weighted towards cherry picked examples of excellent code, it's going to follow the masses.
And the masses write bad-to-average code mostly.