I've tried it, and I don't like it. There's too much confabulation to be useful as code completion, and any task more complicated than that results in logic errors most of the time.

Code completion was fine without LLMs, and solving problems myself usually ends up being quicker than trying to coerce an LLM into doing it correctly and then verifying that the output is actually correct.

The one time I used an LLM in my workflow to good success was using ChatGPT to automatically create an enum of every EU/EEA country and a switch statement over that enum. Those sort of "grunt work" tasks that don't require any thinking, but a lot of typing, seem to be where LLMs shine.

I use Cursor primarily with Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Overall a solid productivity increase depending on the task.

I have a few observations:

- I vastly prefer Cursor's Copilot++ UX for autocomplete compared to GitHub's in VSCode, which I used until a few months ago.

- The Composer multi-file editor (cmd+i) is easily its most powerful feature and what I use most often, even when I'm working on single files. It just works better for some reason.

- It's far more effective working in popular stacks, eg. Typescript/NextJS etc. It's rarely a time-saver when working in Elixir, for example.

- In a similar vein, the less 'conventional' your task or code is, the less useful it becomes.

- As the context increases, it gets noticeably less useful. I often find myself having to plan what context I want to feed it and resetting context often.

- It's very effective at 'translation' tasks, eg. converting a schema from one format to another. It's much less effective at generating complex business logic.

- I only find it useful to generate code I confidently know how to write myself already. Otherwise, it doesn't save me time. The times I've been tempted, it's almost always bitten me.

I have seen none across ChatGPT, Claude and Copilot.

They may be somewhat useful for some small function/lookup, but:

- they will always, without fail, hallucinate non-existent functions, methods, types and libraries. Your job becomes a constant code review, and I'm not here to babysit an eager junior

- claude will always, without fail, rewrite and break your code, and any fixes you've done to Claude's code. Even if you tell it not to. Again, you end up babysitting an eager junior

- fo any question outside of StackOverflow's top-3 languages and top-10 libraries they are next to useless as they know nothing about anything

These are not "AIs" or code assistants or autocompletes. These are generic token prediction machines which don't care if you write code or Harry Potter fanfics.

If you train them specifically on vast amounts of code and documentation, then maybe, just maybe, they may actually be useful

Code autocompletion. I think it works around 60% of the cases, sometimes it saves some tipping. Performance increase: small. Additionally, I don't learn the API as good as if I were to type it, considering moving back.

Yes, I use copilot, Claude, and sometimes Zed with the built in Claude AI tooling.

It's really useful for basic stuff, scripting, boilerplate, repetitive things, SQL. For example it's great at converting types from different languages, or generate types from API reference docs.

You gotta be careful though as it is not perfect and if you do something "not typical" it will not work well. Also sometimes it is a bit outdated, produces code with different "style", or just plain wrong stuff, so you have to tweak it a bit.

It's not going to code for you yet (unless you do very basic stuff) but it's a great tool to increase productivity. I do believe I move faster.

People who use code completion LLMs: is your company running a local install, or are they fine with your code getting shared with LLMs in the cloud?

I write more than I code, but I use ChatGPT a lot throughout the day.

I am integrating AI translations into my custom static site generator. I will test the outcome heavily before putting my name (and a big warning) on my translated content, but the early results look good. Getting it right is a lot harder than piping the page through ChatGPT. Everything needs to be translated from the UI strings to the URL slugs.

My work will no longer just benefit English-speaking immigrants, but also locals and immigrants who Google things in other languages. I am very excited about it.

I also use ChatGPT heavily for “what’s the word/expression for” questions and other fuzzy language queries. As a non-native speaker, I want to know if a given expression is appropriate for the context, if it’s dated, if it’s too informal and if it’s dialect-appropriate.

I also use it for coding, but mostly because it’s faster than reading python’s docs. I ask it questions I know the answer to, hoping to find better approaches. So much happened since Python 2.7, and I don’t always know what to ask for.

On occasion I treat it like I treated my mom as a child. I ask it all sorts of questions about the world I observe around me. It’s amazing to get a short, clear answer to work from, instead of sifting through barely relevant, spammy search results. This is super helpful when getting to know new tech and figuring out what it actually is.

It’s just so damn cool to have a sort of real-life Hitchhiker’s Guide slash Pokédex in my pocket. These things appeared in the span of a year, and nobody seems impressed. Well, I am mad impressed.

I've been using Zed with Claude 3.5 for a few weeks now, and I find it incredibly useful. Being able to be in full control what goes into the context, my workflow is usually

- add files, tabs, terminal output and IDE diagnostics into the context via slash commands - feed in documentation or other remote web content, also via simple slash commands - activate workflow mode, which will help you edit the files instead of having to copy things around - then ask questions, ask for refactoring, ask for new features

Often I like to ask for the high level approach, and if I agree with it let it guide the implementation. It makes mistakes, so I always have to validate and test what it creates, but as you add more information into the context and the LLM has a good amount of stuff to work with, the output quality really improves significantly.

It's a process though, and it takes time to get familiar with the workflow, build intuition when the LLM falls on its face, when you should try a different approach etc.

Generally I can echo what others have said, it works best if you already kind of know what you want to achieve and just use the LLM as an assistant that does the grunt work for you, documents the process, provides a rubber duck etc.

Generally, I would not want to work without an integrated LLM anymore, it provides that much value to my workflow. No panacea, no silver bullet, but when used right in the right circumstances it can be incredibly useful.

A secondary usecase for me is working on repositories where tasks and todos are structured in markdown files (even things like travel planning). Letting the LLM Guide you through todos and create a documentation trail through the process, identify important todos, carry along information as you go is wonderful, I would absolutely give that a try as well.

For common languages e.g. Python, Javascript it works reasonably well although it still seems to prefer older versions of libraries way too often. Which means you need to do refactoring straight out of the bat.

Whenever I use it with Rust, Golang, Scala etc it's not worth the effort.

I find LLMs via Aider great for:

* code translation - e.g. convert a self-contained implementation of a numerical algorithm from one language to another and generate test cases and property tests which make sure the implementations are equivalent. The goal is to avoid having to proof read the generated code.

* one-off scripts - any task where code design doesn't matter, the amount of code is limited to couple hundred lines (GPT-4o) and the result will be thrown away after use.

* API exploration - producing examples for APIs and languages I'm not fluent in. Reading reference documentation gives a better understanding, LLMs get the results out faster.

I use Tabnine - https://www.tabnine.com/ It supports multiple LLM's and it has it's own internal one, and it can be secure for a company and their codebase, unlike the generic OpenAI, Claude, etc.

I do have OpenAI keys and Claude, and I use them both (just as the mood fits, to see which works best).

I'm been coding for decades, so I"m quite experienced. I find that an LLM is no substitute for experience, but it definitely helps with progress. I work regularly in a range of languages: Java, Javascript with Typescript, Javascript pure ESM, Python, SQL. It's great to have a quick prototype tool.

One key takeaway - learning to "drive the LLM" is a skill by itself. I find that some people are "hesitant" to learn this, and they usually complain about how bad the LLM is at generating code.. but, in reality, they are bad at "driving" the LLM.

If I put you in an F1 car, the car would perform perfectly, but unless you had the skills to handle the car, you will not win any races.. might not get around the track one time..

Also, I'm in my 60's so, this is all "new" tech. I've just never been afraid of "new" tech. I'd hate for some 30 year old hot-shot to show my up because they learned to master using that LLM Tool and I just blew it off as "new tech".

Anyway, my $0.02

I've been using the cursor editor (vs code clone with LLM) for 6 months and it definitely improves productivity. Biggest gains are for writing/refactoring just a few lines at a time, where I can understand and test the new code easily.

Working with multiple products, Python and many different libraries and frameworks I have to constantly look up commands and usage. With the LLM I select a line or two, and ask 'sort by region, exclude pre 2023' and it writes (or adds) the necessary Pandas calls to the dataframe. The LLM has my code, tools documentation and more as context, so I don't have to say much to get the right code, but the questions are important, have to converse with a programmer mindset still.

It has almost completely replaced using Google for helping with code. Often I waste too much time in Slashdot looking at a dozen possible similar situations, but not what I need. The LLM immediately gives me something right in my own code. Usually have to give it some followup commands to tweak the code or take a different approach.

The competition in AI editors is a bit silly at the moment. Everyone and their dog are "building" an AI assisted editor now by duct taping Ollama onto VS Code. I don't like my data being sent to untrusted parties, so I cannot evaluate most of these. On top of that, the things keep evolving as well, and editors that I dismissed a few months ago, are now all of a sudden turning into amazing productivity boosters, thanks to developments in both models as well as in editor tricks.

My money is on Cursor [1], which does not stop to amaze me, and seems to get a lot of traction. The integration is very clever, and it is scary how it figures out what I intend to do. Then again, I'm probably doing mundane tasks most of the time. For the few bright moments in my day I tend to use ChatGPT, because most of my real problems are in application domains, not in code.

I am not a firm believer in forking large open-source projects, though, as it will take a lot of effort to keep up with future diversions. This makes me a bit wary of projects such as Cursor and Void [2]. Somebody needs deep pockets to sustainably surpass the popularity of VS Code. To point out just one problem with forking: VS Code works fine in Ubuntu, but Cursor does not work out of the box there. Having to disable the sandbox is a show-stopper for most.

In that respect, the extensions might be a safer bet, and I think Sourcegraph's Cody and Continue are making the largest waves there. Hard to tell with so many waves.

[1] https://www.cursor.com/

[2] https://voideditor.com/

Until recently I was only using Copilot as an advanced autocomplete and to help writing tests, for which it's pretty useful.

A couple weeks ago I had to create some classes (typescript) implementing a quite big spec for a file format to transfer quizzes between applications. I decided to try some more advanced tool, ending up with Cursor and continue.dev. I copied the spec (which are public on the web) into a text file and used them as context, together with a skeleton start for the main class I needed, and experimented with different engines and different prompts.

The end result is that I got a very good starting point for my code, saving me many hours. Surprisingly, for this task, the best result was generated by Gemini 1.5 pro.

Since then I've been trying to integrate these tools more into my day to day programming, with varying results, but I'm now convinced that, even with the limits of the current LLMs, this technology can have a much higher impact on programming with better harnessing, eg integrating it with compiler/code analysis tools output and automated testing.

Asking ChatGPT to give me boilerplate is a huge productivity win for me still. For example, I recently asked ChatGPT to give me a Terraform file that sets up API Gateway, Lambda, and DynamoDB. The script it gave me worked after only a couple of minor tweaks. Was up and running in about 15 minutes, whereas I'm pretty sure it'd be hours if I had to dredge through the docs myself.

100%. I usually use it for prototyping new features.

Two examples...

1. Recently wanted to build a Chrome plugin and never built one before. Used o1-preview to build it all for me.

2. Wanted to build a visualization of the world with color-coded maps using D3. Again, hadn't used D3 much in the past... Claude basically wrote all the code for me and then I just had to make edits to fit my site/template.

One use cases I like a lot is copy paste the entire error from the console into the chat window. No explanation or preamble. Just raw output. Most of the time I get some useful leads out of it. It’s not always solving it entirely for me but even a hint in the right direction can save you hours of digging in the wrong direction.

I wrote my own Notebook Assistent and I use it to quickly make data driven arguments. It is able to both code and read program outputs so it's very good at pulling remote sources, then peeking at the result, doing the data wrangling and then displaying the output. I think having the LLM being able to read program state is a big upgrade for what you can achieve, it can do test driven development for example because it can read the test report. However, being a side project limits the fluidity of the UX, it's open source and buildless though if you want to modify it.its very hackable by design. https://observablehq.com/@tomlarkworthy/robocoop

I have not, LLM is generative and can only create generic stuff and if your project contains lots of generic stuff, is it really interesting? I want to spend time on the parts I find interesting to think thoughts about with my human brain. Problems that have a quick answer in ChatGPT but a more interesting and personal answer after thinking about it for hours and trying 3 different versions of it before deciding on one. Then if I want to quickly test how to create an X11 window I might generate the code and work backwards from that. But… I’m not really in a hurry and if you aren’t you don’t really need LLM

I haven't except on one or two occasionally where I tried it to use me help figuring out how to refactor a bunch of functions quickly.

The downside of LLMs is that it doesn't remove your need to know your code. And writing code yourself is a very good way to know it.

We have our own tooling; it's very good and definitely increases productivity for most. One observation is that people who are bad at reading code seem often to be get negatively impacted vs writing themselves. So from our teams I think that code reading will be more valuable than writing, if it was not already. Just having a loop of telling the llm something, running it and then tell what's wrong with the observed result is very slow vs reviewing the code and tell what's wrong with it instead.

We also use cursor, copilot, claude dev, aider and plandex to see if anything is beating anything else and to get ideas from for our toolkit.

ChatGPT o1 preview is producing amazing results for code and generally helpful with life. It's not well integrated to many IDE tools yet (I use Cody a bit which has a wait list for o1 preview), but then I keep going back to just using the ChatGPT interface anyway because it feels cleaner to manually select and upload the relevant files attachments anyway. I'm sure that will change as integrations improve. Claude seems really popular on here but I wonder if that's just because Sonnet is free and useful enough. I prefer the results of newer ChatGPT models currently and feel they are worth paying for.

I built a simple desktop tool [1] to streamline my coding workflow with LLMs, like integrating with local code context, managing prompts and custom instructions, etc. It supports copy/paste into ChatGPT/Claude, and sending prompts via API.

Currently I estimate it writes about 70% to 80% code (including adding features to the tool itself), and saved me hours of work per week.

Lately I've been exclusively using API since it is cheaper than paying $20 monthly subscription.

[1] https://prompt.16x.engineer/

I am currently working on a side project. I am not very familiar with the domain, and I am using a language I am not very proficient at. Claude has been a great help, discussing different approaches to a problem, sometimes writing (and explaining) a function or two. Or explaining an error.

On top of that, I have configured a chatgpt code reviewer on my github repos. Most of the comments I get from it on PRs are useless but from time to time it does spot a problem or suggest an improvement.

Code completion. I’m about 50/50 on whether it’s actually helpful or I just spend more time reading the completions to make sure they are correct instead of just learning and typing it out myself.