{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieteh5omo3sjjxowrjr7twkhnst5tcu5zhkbdtji3mroppcfgvj44",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mlahbskp2o42"
  },
  "path": "/t/anti-llm-sentiment-considered-harmful/14008?page=4#post_75",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-07T04:26:22.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "I can see the argument, but I think I disagree with it.\n\nLow-level things aren’t just about scaffolding. They’re about:\n\n  * designing primitives\n  * correctness\n  * performance\n\n\n\nI don’t really see that LLMs excel here yet, especially the primitives part, since they appear to not mind code duplication at all. I can’t imagine having to review thousands of lines of code with all those properties in mind. Reviewing low-level details in-depth is exceptionally stressful.\n\nI guess if you primarily enjoy high-level things and architecture, then it makes sense. But my hunch is that this isn’t so much about what LLMs are good at, but what particular part of the process I find a nuisance. I’m pretty sure people are using them for the architecture part as well, of course… with various degrees of success and quality.\n\nWe’ve done this type of work separation in teams of engineers for a long time. I guess the appealing thing, especially for open source, now is that I don’t have to find contributors who deal with the things I don’t care so much about.",
  "title": "Anti-LLM Sentiment Considered Harmful"
}