On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 18:51, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, if the LLM assists the “slow” programmers, who cannot deal with > large contexts, doesn’t this mean that those programmers will care > *less* about building abstractions, because the incentive to build them, > which you describe, is largely gone? In my experience LLMs are *not* good at building abstractions or even reusing code, they can lead to code replication and code bloat. And yes the incentive structure to maintain discipline is not favorable. And yes it will affect everyone, not just a particular category of programmers. They may not feel the need to write better code because LLMs will take care of understanding the code, they do not have to. But this does not mean that we must not use LLMs altogether. A responsible use can make a good programmer very productive. You can take care of the big picture and abstractions while LLMs can potentially help you fill in the local details faster which you can review quickly. I think the entire discussion is around the premise that most people will not be responsible, if that problem arises and becomes a big burden then sure it warrants revisiting the solution. > Or do you mean to say that the LLM > will not only maintain the context but also build the abstractions? If > yes, is abstraction building really something that an LLM is useful for, > and does it make sense for people who used to be strong in abstraction > building to delegate this to a machine? I was trying to say the opposite. You take care of the discipline and abstractions, LLMs will take care of the context. -harendra
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
