4 ms·

I tried Matt's example prompt on a chat transcript, the result sucked. So I corrected it and the output was slightly better, and then I corrected yet another th

I tried Matt's example prompt on a chat transcript, the result sucked. So I corrected it and the output was slightly better, and then I corrected yet another thing at which point it was correct. How is this the way Matt "programs now", if it isn't fully automated and doesn't produce predictable results?

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I think way to many people are simply looking at LLMs as a sort of code completion, and judging it on correctness today, vs the rate of it's improvement and what it very well could be in the future. All one has to do is look at how the latest LLMs perform against human level benchmarks today, and their rate of improvement from the past to see, if this continues, society is going to change.
- ethanwillis 3y ago
  This is how I invest on the stock market as well. I look for upward trajectories, then I extrapolate them to the amount of money I want to make. I invest and wait for the trajectory to keep going up and reach that point. It's just simple physics of course. Do we doubt that an artilleryman won't hit his target? Of course not!
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Do we doubt that an artilleryman won't hit his target? Of course not! When the artilleryman aims for the stars do you assume he will hit the stars?
    - ethanwillis 3y ago
      yes, why wouldn't I?
- LastTrain 3y ago
  I’m not saying LLMs are good for nothing, I just think the class of problem they are good at is not a match for the current rhetoric.
  - Joeri 3y ago
    Part of it is the hype cycle. The other part is that everyone working on them is very confident they will get a lot better at what they are doing today, and will gain new abilities. The kind of programming from the video, conversationally building software, is something that seems to have a high likelihood of happening within the next few years.

4 ms·

I tried Matt's example prompt on a chat transcript, the result sucked. So I corrected it and the output was slightly better, and then I corrected yet another th

by LastTrain 3y ago

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I think way to many people are simply looking at LLMs as a sort of code completion, and judging it on correctness today, vs the rate of it's improvement and what it very well could be in the future. All one has to do is look at how the latest LLMs perform against human level benchmarks today, and their rate of improvement from the past to see, if this continues, society is going to change.
- ethanwillis 3y ago
  This is how I invest on the stock market as well. I look for upward trajectories, then I extrapolate them to the amount of money I want to make. I invest and wait for the trajectory to keep going up and reach that point. It's just simple physics of course. Do we doubt that an artilleryman won't hit his target? Of course not!
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Do we doubt that an artilleryman won't hit his target? Of course not! When the artilleryman aims for the stars do you assume he will hit the stars?
    - ethanwillis 3y ago
      yes, why wouldn't I?
- LastTrain 3y ago
  I’m not saying LLMs are good for nothing, I just think the class of problem they are good at is not a match for the current rhetoric.
  - Joeri 3y ago
    Part of it is the hype cycle. The other part is that everyone working on them is very confident they will get a lot better at what they are doing today, and will gain new abilities. The kind of programming from the video, conversationally building software, is something that seems to have a high likelihood of happening within the next few years.