• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I don’t like to use libraries I don’t understand. Probably part why I’m not a professional developer, but it’s the principle of the thing - don’t put out code you can’t vouch for.

    I mean, yes, it’s way easier to just use the library, trust it works; but by that logic, it’s also way easier to just let an llm code for you.

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Probably part why I’m not a professional developer, but it’s the principle of the thing

      There’s no ‘principle’ here, that’s something that simply would not be possible in any sort of large project. To suggest all professional software developers read every line of every library before using it is ridiculously unworkable.

    • mabeledo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Libraries can be audited. LLM generated code cannot.

      Edit: to clarify, it is impossible to audit all LLM generated code across a number of projects, that would replace a single library. It simply won’t happen, because there will always be a non trivial number of users who will copy and paste code without inspecting it. In contrast, widely used open source libraries may be audited by a small subset of their users, and the rest would benefit from that.