When I first tried an LLM agent, I was hoping for an interactive, 2-way, pair collaboration. Instead, what I got was a pairing partner who wanted to do everything themselves. I couldn't even tweak the code they had written, because it would mess up their context.
I want a pairing partner where I can write a little, they write a little, I write a little, they write a little. You know, an actual collaboration.
bluefirebrand · 2h ago
Pair programming is also not suitable for all cases
Maybe not for many cases
I mentioned this elsewhere but I find it absolutely impossible to get into a good programming flow anymore while the LLM constantly interrupts me with suggested autocompletes that I have to stop, read, review, and accept/reject
It's been miserable trying to incorporate this into my workflow
meesles · 2h ago
Second this. My solution is to have a 'non-AI' IDE and then a Cursor/VS Code to switch between. Deep work cannot be achieved by chatting with the coding bots, sorry.
gen220 · 1h ago
You should try aider! This is my workflow, essentially
morkalork · 2h ago
Thirded. It was just completely distracting and I had to turn it off. I use AI but not after every keystroke, jeez.
latentsea · 1h ago
But but but... "we are an AI-first company".
Yeah, nah. Fourthed!
mdp2021 · 1h ago
> AI-first company
Does anybody introduce itself like that?
It's like when your date sends subtle signals, like kicking sleeping tramps in the street and snorting the flour over bread at the restaurant.
(The shocking thing is that the expression would even make sense when taken properly - "we have organized our workflows through AI-intelligent systems" -, while at this time it easily means the opposite.)
neilv · 18m ago
> > AI-first company
> Does anybody introduce itself like that?
Yes, I've started getting job posts sent to me that say that.
Declaring one's company "AI-first" right now is a great time-saver: I know instantly that I can disregard those companies.
soulofmischief · 1h ago
> Deep work cannot be achieved by chatting with the coding bots, sorry.
...by you. Meanwhile, plenty of us have found a way to enhance our productivity during deep work. No need for the patronization.
bluefirebrand · 1h ago
I don't believe you experience deep work the same way I do then
In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions
soulofmischief · 1h ago
You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that not everyone works the same way you do, or interacts the same way with agents. They are not constant interruptions if you use them correctly.
Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open mind and attempting to learn from those who contradict your beliefs.
You could have asked for tips since I said I've found a way to work deeply with them, but instead chose to assume that you knew better. This kind of attitude will stunt your ability to adopt these programs in the same way that many people were dismissive about personal computers or the internet and got left behind.
girvo · 51m ago
It’s quite amusing to see you complain about patronisation, and then see you turn about and do it yourself one comment later.
antihipocrat · 41m ago
Would be informative if both sides share what the problem domain is when providing their their experiences.
It's possible that the domain or the complexity of the problems are the deciding factor for success with AI supported programming. Statements like 'you'll be left behind' or 'it's a skill issue' are as helpful as 'It fails miserably'
JumpCrisscross · 40m ago
For what it’s worth, the deepest-thinking and most profound programmers I have met—hell, thinkers in general—have a peculiar tendency to favour pen and paper. Perhaps because once their work is recognised, they are generally working with a team that can amplify them without needing to interrupt their thought flow.
8note · 1h ago
if youre using a computer at all, youre doing it wrong. deep work can only be done from the forest with no internet reception, pencil and paper
flessner · 2h ago
I recently got a new laptop and had to setup my IDE again.
After a couple hours of coding something felt "weird" - turns out I forgot to login to GitHub Copilot and I was working without it the entire time. I felt a lot more proactive and confident as I wasn't waiting on the autocomplete.
Also, Cursor was exceptional at interrupting any kind of "flow" - who even wants their next cursor position predicted?
I'll probably keep Copilot disabled for now and stick to the agent-style tools like aider for boilerplate or redundant tasks.
ipaddr · 1h ago
It's strange the pure llm workflow and boring. I still write most of my own code and will llms when I'm too lazy to write the next piece.
If I give it to an llm most of my time is spent debugging and reprompting. I hate fixing someone elses bug.
Plus I like the feeling of the coding flow..wind at my back. Each keystroke putting us one step closer.
The apps I made with llms I never want to go back to but the apps I made by hand piece by piece getting a chemical reaction when problems were solved are the ones I think positively about and want to go back to.
I always did math on paper or my head and never used a calculator. Its a skill I never have forgotten and I worry how many programmers won't be able to code without llms in the future.
johnfn · 1h ago
> who even wants their next cursor position predicted
I'm fascinated by how different workflows are. This single feature has saved me a staggering amount of time.
jumploops · 1h ago
I’m a Vim user and couldn’t agree more.
Didn’t like any of the AI-IDEs, but loved using LLMs for spinning up one off solutions (copy/paste).
Not to be a fan boy, but Claude Code is my new LLM workflow. It’s tough trying to get it to do everything, but works really well with a targeted task on an existing code base.
Perfect harmony of a traditional code editor (Vim) with an LLM-enhanced workflow in my experience.
amazingamazing · 2h ago
Code regularly, and use ai to get unblocked if you do so or review code for mistakes.
Or have the ai write the entire first draft for some piece and then you give it a once over, correcting it either manually or with prompts.
No comments yet
palisade · 15m ago
LLM agents don't know how to shut up and always think they're right about everything. They also lack the ability to be brief. Sometimes things can be solved with a single character or line, but no they write a full page. And, they write paragraphs of comments for even the most minuscule of changes.
They talk at you, are overbearing and arrogant.
ChrisMarshallNY · 2h ago
I use an LLM as a reference (on-demand), and don't use agents (yet). I was never into pair programming, anyway, so it isn't a familiar workflow for me.
I will admit that it encourages "laziness," on my part, but I'm OK with that (remember when they said that calculators would do that? They were right).
For example, I am working on a SwiftUI project (an Apple Watch app), and forgot how to do a fairly basic thing. I could have looked it up, in a few minutes, but it was easier to just spin up ChatGPT, and ask it how to do it. I had the answer in a few seconds. Looking up SwiftUI stuff is a misery. The documentation is ... a work in progress ...
petesergeant · 1h ago
> I use an LLM as a reference (on-demand), and don't use agents (yet)
This was me until about three weeks ago. Then, during a week of holiday, I decided I didn't want to get left behind and tried a few side-projects using agents -- specifically I've been using Roo. Now I use agents when appropriate, which I'd guess is about 50% of the work I'm doing.
ramesh31 · 2h ago
>LLM agents make bad pairs because they code faster than humans think
This is why I strongly dislike all of the terminal based tools and PR based stuff. If you're left to read through a completed chunk of code it is just overwhelming and your cycle time is too slow. The key to productivity is using an IDE based tool that shows you every line of code as it is being written, so you're reading it and understanding where it's going in real time. Augmentation, not automation, is the path forward. Think of it like the difference between walking and having a manual transmission car to drive, not the difference between having a car and having a self driving car.
bluefirebrand · 2h ago
If I have a 20 line function in my mind and the LLM injects 20 lines for me to accept or reject, I have two problems
First I have to review the 20 lines the LLM has produced
Second, if I reject those lines, it has probably shoved the function I had in mind out of my head
It's enormously disruptive to my progress
ramesh31 · 1h ago
The hard truth here is in accepting that the 20 lines in your head were probably wrong, or suboptimal, and letting go of that urge. Think in interfaces, not implementations. Successive rendering, not one-shot.
shortstuffsushi · 1h ago
This is just fundamentally not the case most of the time. LLMs guess where you're going, but so often what they produce is a "similar looking" non sequitur relative to the lines above it. It guesses, and sometimes that guess is good, but as often, or more, it's not.
The suggestion "think in interfaces" is fine; if you spell out enough context in comments, the LLM may be able to guess more accurately, but in spelling out that much context for it, you've likely already done the mental exercise of the implementation.
Also baffled by "wrong or suboptimal," I don't think I've ever seen an LLM come up with a better solution.
xedrac · 1h ago
Maybe it's the domain I work in, or the languages I use, but the 20 lines the LLM comes up with is almost certainly wrong.
datameta · 1h ago
I agree with the last two sentences but simultaneously think that starting to defacto believe you cannot have an equal or better solution compared to the AI is the start of atrophy of those skills.
bluefirebrand · 1h ago
> The hard truth here is in accepting that the 20 lines in your head were probably wrong, or suboptimal, and letting go of that urge.
Maybe, but the dogshit that Cursor generates is definitely wrong so frankly if it's gonna be my name on the PR then I want it to me my wrong code not hide behind some automated tool
> Think in interfaces, not implementations
In my experience you likely won't know if you've designed the right interface until you successfully implement the solution. Trying to design the perfect interface upfront is almost guaranteed to take longer than just building the thing
simoncion · 1h ago
> ...and letting go of that urge.
What urge? The urge to understand what the software you're about to build upon is doing? If so, uh... no. No thanks.
I've seen some proponents of these code-generation machines say things like "You don't check the output of your optimizing compiler, so why check the output of Claude/Devon/whatever?". The problem with this analogy is that the output from mainstream optimizing compilers is very nearly always correct. It may be notably worse than hand-generated output, but it's nearly never wrong. Not even the most rabid proponent will claim the same of today's output from these code-generation machines.
So, when these machines emit code, I will inevitably have to switch from "designing and implementing my software system" mode into "reading and understanding someone else's code" mode. Some folks may be actually be able to do this context-shuffling quickly and easily. I am not one of those people. The results from those studies from a while back that found that folks take something like a quarter-hour to really get back into the groove when interrupted while doing a technical task suggest that not that many folks are able to do this.
> Think in interfaces...
Like has been said already, you don't tend to get the right interface until you've attempted to use it with a bunch of client code. "Take a good, educated stab at it and refine it as the client implementations reveal problems in your design." is the way you're going to go for all but the most well-known problems. (And if your problem is that well-known, why are you writing more than a handful of lines solving that problem again? Why haven't you bundled up the solution to that problem in a library already?)
> Successive rendering, not one-shot.
Yes, like nearly all problem-solving, most programming is and always has been an iterative process. One rarely gets things right on the first try.
I want a pairing partner where I can write a little, they write a little, I write a little, they write a little. You know, an actual collaboration.
Maybe not for many cases
I mentioned this elsewhere but I find it absolutely impossible to get into a good programming flow anymore while the LLM constantly interrupts me with suggested autocompletes that I have to stop, read, review, and accept/reject
It's been miserable trying to incorporate this into my workflow
Yeah, nah. Fourthed!
Does anybody introduce itself like that?
It's like when your date sends subtle signals, like kicking sleeping tramps in the street and snorting the flour over bread at the restaurant.
(The shocking thing is that the expression would even make sense when taken properly - "we have organized our workflows through AI-intelligent systems" -, while at this time it easily means the opposite.)
> Does anybody introduce itself like that?
Yes, I've started getting job posts sent to me that say that.
Declaring one's company "AI-first" right now is a great time-saver: I know instantly that I can disregard those companies.
...by you. Meanwhile, plenty of us have found a way to enhance our productivity during deep work. No need for the patronization.
In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions
Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open mind and attempting to learn from those who contradict your beliefs.
You could have asked for tips since I said I've found a way to work deeply with them, but instead chose to assume that you knew better. This kind of attitude will stunt your ability to adopt these programs in the same way that many people were dismissive about personal computers or the internet and got left behind.
It's possible that the domain or the complexity of the problems are the deciding factor for success with AI supported programming. Statements like 'you'll be left behind' or 'it's a skill issue' are as helpful as 'It fails miserably'
After a couple hours of coding something felt "weird" - turns out I forgot to login to GitHub Copilot and I was working without it the entire time. I felt a lot more proactive and confident as I wasn't waiting on the autocomplete.
Also, Cursor was exceptional at interrupting any kind of "flow" - who even wants their next cursor position predicted?
I'll probably keep Copilot disabled for now and stick to the agent-style tools like aider for boilerplate or redundant tasks.
If I give it to an llm most of my time is spent debugging and reprompting. I hate fixing someone elses bug.
Plus I like the feeling of the coding flow..wind at my back. Each keystroke putting us one step closer.
The apps I made with llms I never want to go back to but the apps I made by hand piece by piece getting a chemical reaction when problems were solved are the ones I think positively about and want to go back to.
I always did math on paper or my head and never used a calculator. Its a skill I never have forgotten and I worry how many programmers won't be able to code without llms in the future.
I'm fascinated by how different workflows are. This single feature has saved me a staggering amount of time.
Didn’t like any of the AI-IDEs, but loved using LLMs for spinning up one off solutions (copy/paste).
Not to be a fan boy, but Claude Code is my new LLM workflow. It’s tough trying to get it to do everything, but works really well with a targeted task on an existing code base.
Perfect harmony of a traditional code editor (Vim) with an LLM-enhanced workflow in my experience.
Or have the ai write the entire first draft for some piece and then you give it a once over, correcting it either manually or with prompts.
No comments yet
They talk at you, are overbearing and arrogant.
I will admit that it encourages "laziness," on my part, but I'm OK with that (remember when they said that calculators would do that? They were right).
For example, I am working on a SwiftUI project (an Apple Watch app), and forgot how to do a fairly basic thing. I could have looked it up, in a few minutes, but it was easier to just spin up ChatGPT, and ask it how to do it. I had the answer in a few seconds. Looking up SwiftUI stuff is a misery. The documentation is ... a work in progress ...
This was me until about three weeks ago. Then, during a week of holiday, I decided I didn't want to get left behind and tried a few side-projects using agents -- specifically I've been using Roo. Now I use agents when appropriate, which I'd guess is about 50% of the work I'm doing.
This is why I strongly dislike all of the terminal based tools and PR based stuff. If you're left to read through a completed chunk of code it is just overwhelming and your cycle time is too slow. The key to productivity is using an IDE based tool that shows you every line of code as it is being written, so you're reading it and understanding where it's going in real time. Augmentation, not automation, is the path forward. Think of it like the difference between walking and having a manual transmission car to drive, not the difference between having a car and having a self driving car.
First I have to review the 20 lines the LLM has produced
Second, if I reject those lines, it has probably shoved the function I had in mind out of my head
It's enormously disruptive to my progress
The suggestion "think in interfaces" is fine; if you spell out enough context in comments, the LLM may be able to guess more accurately, but in spelling out that much context for it, you've likely already done the mental exercise of the implementation.
Also baffled by "wrong or suboptimal," I don't think I've ever seen an LLM come up with a better solution.
Maybe, but the dogshit that Cursor generates is definitely wrong so frankly if it's gonna be my name on the PR then I want it to me my wrong code not hide behind some automated tool
> Think in interfaces, not implementations
In my experience you likely won't know if you've designed the right interface until you successfully implement the solution. Trying to design the perfect interface upfront is almost guaranteed to take longer than just building the thing
What urge? The urge to understand what the software you're about to build upon is doing? If so, uh... no. No thanks.
I've seen some proponents of these code-generation machines say things like "You don't check the output of your optimizing compiler, so why check the output of Claude/Devon/whatever?". The problem with this analogy is that the output from mainstream optimizing compilers is very nearly always correct. It may be notably worse than hand-generated output, but it's nearly never wrong. Not even the most rabid proponent will claim the same of today's output from these code-generation machines.
So, when these machines emit code, I will inevitably have to switch from "designing and implementing my software system" mode into "reading and understanding someone else's code" mode. Some folks may be actually be able to do this context-shuffling quickly and easily. I am not one of those people. The results from those studies from a while back that found that folks take something like a quarter-hour to really get back into the groove when interrupted while doing a technical task suggest that not that many folks are able to do this.
> Think in interfaces...
Like has been said already, you don't tend to get the right interface until you've attempted to use it with a bunch of client code. "Take a good, educated stab at it and refine it as the client implementations reveal problems in your design." is the way you're going to go for all but the most well-known problems. (And if your problem is that well-known, why are you writing more than a handful of lines solving that problem again? Why haven't you bundled up the solution to that problem in a library already?)
> Successive rendering, not one-shot.
Yes, like nearly all problem-solving, most programming is and always has been an iterative process. One rarely gets things right on the first try.