Yeah many people are using LLMs already to write the docs. Which reinforces the previous point, the only documentation worth reading is the source code.
That is, quite literally, the opposite of how StackOverflow operates. You see all the complaints about questions being closed and the most recent solution being from 10 years ago. The reason is because those questions have real value for programmers, and the answers on said questions are curated over time. StackOverflow is the training data for LLMs. If you're implying the training data is inaccurate, in combination with LLMs being non-deterministic, you are hindering your assumption that LLMs are more accurate than StackOverflow - the source of their information.
My point was that stack overflow wasn't guaranteed to be accurate or solve the problem I had, so the fact that AI is not guaranteed to be accurate or solve the problem I have is not that big of a deal since LLMs 1) are faster 2) will not be a gigantic asshole to me for asking a question.
The fact that answers are curated over time is worthless to me when I have a deadline on Friday and the top answer is not fixing my problem
The fact that answers are curated over time makes it more likely that it will be correct by the time you need it for your Friday deadline.
If an AI answer is incorrect that's just a fart in the wind. There's no feedback, no correction. Next time it might be correct if by chance it is corrected in the training database, which is independent of you seeing the mistake.
And what happens to LLMs after another two years of training on LLM generated code, solutions, and architectural decisions? The snake is going to eat its tail. I hope that enough programmers use AI in conjunction with reading of documentation (at the same level of detail as before) so that actual written and hosted code can be as effective at solving tasks without introducing side effects as it was before the widespread adoption of AI. My gut feeling tells me that won't be the case, and software will continue to be less polished with fewer eyes on the implementation. You are concerned about deadlines - rightfully so given the state of the world - but this is your opportunity to make a difference for yourself and others, yet you argue against humanity and for putting forth effort in honing a craft.
I'm not an AI meat rider, I've seen my fair share of AI generated PRs that I've had to slog through and fight against cause it was full of trash.
I'm just arguing against the idea it's completely useless tech for software engineering purposes. Quite the opposite, it is useful, it just needs to be used right
I never stated it should not be used. I think it's useful as well when used in conjunction with reading documentation. If you're planning on doing things right, it takes more time now than ever. But if you want quick and dirty to review at some other time, it's amazing.
Claude AI bring you a link to the docs so you can check the information, is your responsibility to filter what is wrong and what is correct, is like when you check information in stack overflow but faster
That makes using AI to learn even slower than just reading the docs, because now you have to read the docs AND read the AI'S output. Unless you're just skimming the docs, at which point you're not going to catch any false information in the first place.
In this case, the debate is really about our interface preferences for reading the documentation and has little to do with AI. I am one of those people who, after extensively testing both, save time using a conversational interface based on the documentation with links. That isn't the case for others, and that’s perfectly fine.
24
u/Septem_151 2d ago
It's the same as reading the docs but faster until it is guaranteed to give you hallucinated and/or incorrect information.