{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaelidujq57xvai74wh7mskbuqleobamdlxo2rbx2bg3jo7xwy75q",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgz7oog3pio2"
  },
  "path": "/t/yet-another-opinion-on-llms-hasufells-blog/13775#post_16",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-14T09:57:11.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "OK. I’ve had good results with ChatGPT-5.4 Thinking and Claude Opus 4.6. GPT-4.1 in particular is almost a year old…\n\nI have found them excellent for understanding new technologies (especially how to use package X with library Y in situation Z), general planning design and architecture, debugging and analysis (e.g. “why is this SQL query so slow and what are some alternative approaches”), code review, and a certain amount of code writing on existing projects. Honestly completely indispensable, like a junior-to-mid developer who nevertheless has deep experience with every technology and inexhaustible patience. That said, I haven’t yet tried “vibe coding” or more complicated code creation or the multi-agent approach that I’ve heard some people do.\n\nMy experiences just don’t resemble yours at all. They’re perfectly capable of adapting to any situation. They are excellent at understanding existing work, both code and documentation. They do make occasional mistakes, but they are typically the kind of mistakes that humans make. I don’t know what to tell you…",
  "title": "Yet another opinion on LLMs · Hasufell's blog"
}