4 ms·

By definition "all the other software" can't have bad UX, as a large part of UX is predictability. And no, talking about your software "wrong" won't matter mea

by Zetice 3y ago

By definition "all the other software" can't have bad UX, as a large part of UX is predictability. And no, talking about your software "wrong" won't matter meaningfully. Also people would have to talk about your software at all for that to even matter, which is not happening.

gavinhoward 3y ago
By what definition? Also, I'm making a build system, which are pretty universally hated. And that's not to say I don't follow patterns that other build systems do; I do. In fact, a lot of software has bad UX by not acting as users assume they do. My software take those assumptions and works with them. But that doesn't explain how the LLM can't get it wrong. People talking about my software wrong will matter because LLM's predict the next word. If my documentation does not win the prediction war in a particular run, the LLM will get it wrong. And people are already talking about my software, so claiming they aren't is wrong.
- Zetice 3y ago
  If what you say is true then an LLM will do just fine, exactly how it does with literally every other piece of software that has hey do work well with. Like I said, this reveals a wildly wrong and terrible understanding of how LLMs work. Your software is not special, unique, or difficult for an LLM to understand, and people talking about using it wrong would not screw with an LLMs ability to provide help. Additionally, no. Nobody is talking about your software, not to any level relevant to this conversation.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    Uh no. You're wrong on all counts. The worst is that LLM's do not "understand" software. If you think they do, you are the one with a bad understanding of them and how they work. So I can stop talking to you. And any talking about my software is a level relevant to this because we don't know the weights an LLM has.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      In the context of LLMs, it’s common to say “understood” as an anthropomorphic shortcut to describe the weights on their neural networks. You don’t get this, I understand, but the phrase is perfectly acceptable here. And I absolutely do not need to know the LLMs weights to understand generally how they work. Further, I’ve successfully used them for exactly what you’re claiming they’d fail at, as have literally millions of people. They simply wouldn’t be useful if they worked as you described here.

by Zetice 3y ago

gavinhoward 3y ago

By what definition? Also, I'm making a build system, which are pretty universally hated. And that's not to say I don't follow patterns that other build systems do; I do. In fact, a lot of software has bad UX by not acting as users assume they do. My software take those assumptions and works with them. But that doesn't explain how the LLM can't get it wrong. People talking about my software wrong will matter because LLM's predict the next word. If my documentation does not win the prediction war in a particular run, the LLM will get it wrong. And people are already talking about my software, so claiming they aren't is wrong.

Zetice 3y ago
If what you say is true then an LLM will do just fine, exactly how it does with literally every other piece of software that has hey do work well with. Like I said, this reveals a wildly wrong and terrible understanding of how LLMs work. Your software is not special, unique, or difficult for an LLM to understand, and people talking about using it wrong would not screw with an LLMs ability to provide help. Additionally, no. Nobody is talking about your software, not to any level relevant to this conversation.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  Uh no. You're wrong on all counts. The worst is that LLM's do not "understand" software. If you think they do, you are the one with a bad understanding of them and how they work. So I can stop talking to you. And any talking about my software is a level relevant to this because we don't know the weights an LLM has.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    In the context of LLMs, it’s common to say “understood” as an anthropomorphic shortcut to describe the weights on their neural networks. You don’t get this, I understand, but the phrase is perfectly acceptable here. And I absolutely do not need to know the LLMs weights to understand generally how they work. Further, I’ve successfully used them for exactly what you’re claiming they’d fail at, as have literally millions of people. They simply wouldn’t be useful if they worked as you described here.