4 ms·
> After that, it’s an interesting question if they will be critiquing our code or just trash canning it all. I feel like with many replacement technologies, th
by mxmlnkn 3y ago
> After that, it’s an interesting question if they will be critiquing our code or just trash canning it all.
I feel like with many replacement technologies, the human condition leads to nothing being fully replaced, even assuming your runaway theory to be true. Ok, so there is super seemingly good code coming out of LLM in a decade or two but no human does understand it anymore and it will not be fully trusted. You will end up having the option to choose unproven, mystical, machine-generated programs or pain-stakingly handcrafted programs produced by "programming artisans" with a good reputation for 10-100x the price.
Furthermore, I feel like with some packages I have built, the documentation, the packaging and publishing and everything else around it took more time than the actual programming. In the future, there might even be mandatory certifications of it if the EU gets even more controlling. If the LLM doesn't get good at all of these tasks, it will only ever replace the small part of pure programming and as with Amdahl's law, it will at some point only yield diminishing returns in efficiency increase.
- Nevermark 3y agoGood points. Formal verification could close the trust gap. What happens when we are no longer capable of understand many of the machines' activities will be another matter entirely.