> “why engineer something fundamentally well at the start if there it is zero cost to fix it later when problems actually show up?”
Because this is a myth. it is not true that there is zero cost to fix it. LLMs become less effective the more convoluted codebases become just like humans, if only at a different rate.
Is there something about an LLM that makes it incapable of simplifying a codebase? I have only seen that the slop jockeys who wield LLMs most ardently don't seem to care about that, and that older models were worse at everything, including that.
I try this really hard but it seems that getting an LLM to simplify a code base meaningfully is a much harder problem than getting it to output mostly functioning features very quickly.
They are great at adding but reducing takes much more hand-holding in my experience. Maybe this will improve, maybe it does not matter, maybe I am holding it wrong, I don't know.
Because this is a myth. it is not true that there is zero cost to fix it. LLMs become less effective the more convoluted codebases become just like humans, if only at a different rate.
They are great at adding but reducing takes much more hand-holding in my experience. Maybe this will improve, maybe it does not matter, maybe I am holding it wrong, I don't know.