▲ 77 ▼ Linux Kernel Developers Consider Adding AGENTS.md To Help Guide AI/LLM Agents (www.phoronix.com) submitted 6 days ago by Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club to c/technology@lemmy.world 38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 days ago* (4 children) If that's the case; why use the agent to edit the code in the first place? Agents for generation, humans for review permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (3 children) One, that sounds truly miserable. Two, there is a decent body of evidence to suggest that this method does not actually speed up development unless you go full lights out software factory which... Why would you want to do that? https://ide.mit.edu/insights/ai-productivity-and-roi/ EDIT: As an aside this actually reminds me of the Xerox park study into efficiency gains for keyboard heavy workflows vice mouse heavy workflows. Keyboards were perceived as faster by subjects but when actually measured the mouse was faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children) That's just because I need to stop and appreciate my efficiency for 10 seconds every time it saves me 10 seconds :-) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) You joke but that's basically the conclusion of both the newer agent studies and the older Xerox park study on peripheral use. Language and logic are stored in an easier to access location in the brain than the kinds of skills used in architecture and planning. To be clear, I'm no rube. I recognize that these are powerful tools. But I suppose my take here is that if an LLM is necessary to get rid of a lot of the boilerplate and setup for a task that indicates we should explore how we're doing the task. What I want to see is using these tools not to delegate our problem solving but finding ways to enhance and accelerate it and I don't think writing spec sheets is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* I think you're correct, the amount of rigor in your prompts seems orthogonal from whether you're using them for architecture or implementation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (3 children) One, that sounds truly miserable. Two, there is a decent body of evidence to suggest that this method does not actually speed up development unless you go full lights out software factory which... Why would you want to do that? https://ide.mit.edu/insights/ai-productivity-and-roi/ EDIT: As an aside this actually reminds me of the Xerox park study into efficiency gains for keyboard heavy workflows vice mouse heavy workflows. Keyboards were perceived as faster by subjects but when actually measured the mouse was faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children) That's just because I need to stop and appreciate my efficiency for 10 seconds every time it saves me 10 seconds :-) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) You joke but that's basically the conclusion of both the newer agent studies and the older Xerox park study on peripheral use. Language and logic are stored in an easier to access location in the brain than the kinds of skills used in architecture and planning. To be clear, I'm no rube. I recognize that these are powerful tools. But I suppose my take here is that if an LLM is necessary to get rid of a lot of the boilerplate and setup for a task that indicates we should explore how we're doing the task. What I want to see is using these tools not to delegate our problem solving but finding ways to enhance and accelerate it and I don't think writing spec sheets is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* I think you're correct, the amount of rigor in your prompts seems orthogonal from whether you're using them for architecture or implementation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children) That's just because I need to stop and appreciate my efficiency for 10 seconds every time it saves me 10 seconds :-) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) You joke but that's basically the conclusion of both the newer agent studies and the older Xerox park study on peripheral use. Language and logic are stored in an easier to access location in the brain than the kinds of skills used in architecture and planning. To be clear, I'm no rube. I recognize that these are powerful tools. But I suppose my take here is that if an LLM is necessary to get rid of a lot of the boilerplate and setup for a task that indicates we should explore how we're doing the task. What I want to see is using these tools not to delegate our problem solving but finding ways to enhance and accelerate it and I don't think writing spec sheets is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* I think you're correct, the amount of rigor in your prompts seems orthogonal from whether you're using them for architecture or implementation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago* (1 child) You joke but that's basically the conclusion of both the newer agent studies and the older Xerox park study on peripheral use. Language and logic are stored in an easier to access location in the brain than the kinds of skills used in architecture and planning. To be clear, I'm no rube. I recognize that these are powerful tools. But I suppose my take here is that if an LLM is necessary to get rid of a lot of the boilerplate and setup for a task that indicates we should explore how we're doing the task. What I want to see is using these tools not to delegate our problem solving but finding ways to enhance and accelerate it and I don't think writing spec sheets is the answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* I think you're correct, the amount of rigor in your prompts seems orthogonal from whether you're using them for architecture or implementation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* I think you're correct, the amount of rigor in your prompts seems orthogonal from whether you're using them for architecture or implementation. permalink fedilink source parent