This isn’t a binary is/isn’t thing though. What if only 80% of my task is, how would I know that the other part isn’t, if I haven’t worked it through fully
What if my task is generally represented, but for my specific context, there are specific details that aren’t?
How would I know until I’ve reasoned through it myself? At that point having the LLM do the work doesn’t add much value
This sounds like a subjective assessment. I counter with the opinion that most LLMs write technically correct, but bad code. When I read it, it makes me want to gag or poke my eyes out. I spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person would write it like that, then I realize it’s an LLM
It’s like a modern gun (or nuclear bomb). They’re really only necessary because other people also have guns. We could have all the same effects with swords and bows and arrows. This just 10x’s the effect of deciding to use the thing.
So now we need a 10x defense against people deciding to use the thing.
Invented a problem and now are selling a solution (but wait not yet… they have to build some more mystery and hype around it)
Of course he's not writing a legal contract, but to go from saying:
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.
And then fully merging into main in under 18 days is quite extreme
This is just bad design. Or a faulty tool. Why should the job market shift to accommodate this gap in the functioning of LLMs? This is a bug that needs to be fixed.
I have a personal gripe about this bringing an unfinished tool to market and then prophetizing about its usefulness. And how we all better get ready for it. This seems very hand-wavey and is looking more and more like vaporware.
It's like trying to quickly build a house on an unfinished foundation. Why are we rushing to build? Can't we get the foundational things right first?