ShareLarge language models (LLMs) have gained popularity across various domains, serving as virtual assistants, coding assistants, and even supporting learning and research. As coding assistants, they’re great for generating code, debugging issues, creating documentation, and automating repetitive tasks. However, despite their strengths, these models are not quite ready to replace human programmers.
Recent research and benchmarking reveal that, while LLMs are impressive in some contexts, they fall short when dealing with the realities of complex software projects.
Here’s why LLMs still have a long way to go to match human developers…
LLMs handle simple code well but struggle with complex projects
In simple environments, LLMs can perform impressively. If you ask an LLM to write a small function or solve a typical coding problem, it often produces useful code with remarkable accuracy. On coding benchmarks involving short, self-contained tasks, LLMs frequently hit accuracy rates above 90%.
However, these controlled scenarios don’t reflect the complexity of real-world software projects. Real projects involve intricate dependencies, connections across files, and a lot of moving parts. When applied to these types of tasks, LLMs don’t do nearly as well. They often struggle to interpret complex code bases, where understanding the context within a single file isn’t enough, developers need to know how multiple files, classes, and functions interact.
Where LLMs falter: Context and complexity
In real-world projects, programming is rarely about writing isolated functions. Developers need to understand the full context of a project, connecting the dots across multiple files and functions. Here’s where LLMs face challenges:
File-level and repository-level dependencies:
In large projects, functions are rarely standalone. They depend on other parts of the codebase across files, classes, and modules. While a human developer can navigate these relationships intuitively, LLMs tend to miss crucial dependencies, making it difficult for them to write code that works in real-world contexts.
Complex logic in long functions:
Real-world functions often involve hundreds of lines of code with complex logic and high control flow. These functions are far more demanding than typical benchmark tasks. When tasked with writing or modifying this kind of code, LLMs frequently produce incomplete or inaccurate results, as they lose coherence over longer or more complicated code.
Handling and passing rigorous tests:
Developers make sure their code works by writing robust test cases, accounting for various scenarios and edge cases. Although LLMs can generate code that appears correct on the surface, it often fails when run through rigorous testing. LLMs lack the natural problem-solving and debugging abilities that human programmers use to anticipate and address these potential issues.
Current LLM scores in real-life coding benchmarks
Recent research reveals just how much further current LLMs must develop. When faced with tasks requiring project-wide understanding and accurate dependency resolution, the scores reveal the models’ limitations. Here are some performance highlights:
- GPT-4o achieved a maximum accuracy of 27.35% on complex, project-level tasks, the highest among all models tested.
- DeepSeek-V2.5 followed in second place with an accuracy range of 18–27%.
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o-Mini, OpenCodeInterpreter-33B, and DeepSeekCoder-33B produced similar results, averaging around 15–20% accuracy on the same benchmark.
- Other LLMs tested in the research achieved less than 15% accuracy.
One important note about this benchmark is that it used a pass@1 scoring method, where only the model’s first solution is considered for accuracy. There is a possibility that these scores might have been higher if techniques like mixture of agents (using multiple models with different specialties) or self-reflection (allowing the model to iteratively improve its output) had been applied. However, pass@1 is the standard method for benchmarking LLMs, which is why it was used in this research.
LLMs as coding partners, not replacements
Despite their limitations, LLMs have proven to be useful coding assistants in specific scenarios. Here are some of their strengths:
- Speeding up repetitive tasks: LLMs are great at generating boilerplate code, small functions or handling repetitive tasks. They can quickly generate code for these smaller tasks, freeing up developers to focus on the more challenging parts of a project.
- Providing coding suggestions and debugging: When developers get stuck, LLMs can offer potential solutions, alternative approaches or even find potential fixes. While not always accurate, these suggestions can help prompt new ideas.
- Generating simple tests and documentation: LLMs can help with code documentation and basic test case generation, making them useful in speeding up certain aspects of development.
The verdict: Human developers are still essential
For now, LLMs should be seen as powerful tools that support developers but are far from replacing them. They lack the ability to manage complex, interconnected systems and to “think” about code the way a human can. Human developers bring creativity, critical thinking, and an intuitive grasp of project-level context—qualities that LLMs currently lack.
The road ahead for LLMs in programming is exciting, and future improvements may bring them closer to more advanced project comprehension. But for now, the adaptability, insight, and expertise of a skilled human programmer remain essential to successful software development.
Let’s work together to build smarter, more efficient solutions
By combining cutting-edge LLM technology with human expertise, Elixirr Digital bridges the gap between what these models can achieve and the demands of real-world development. Let’s work together to build smarter, more efficient solutions for your development needs.
Contact us today to discover how we can help your team unlock the full potential of LLM technology.
Related reading
- How to Leverage the Power of AI in Digital Marketing Guide
- AI AI AI: Another day, another language model. Enter Bing
- Google’s AI-Generated Content Update & What It Means For Digital Copywriters
- The Ultimate AI Showdown: OpenAI’s ChatGPT Vs. Google’s Bard
- Understanding the Opportunities and Implications of AI in Digital Marketing
