4 ms·

It's not meant to be a scientifically rigorous test, but the idea is this. It seems like you're accepting that (at least in its current state, barring unknowab

by qsort 3y ago

It's not meant to be a scientifically rigorous test, but the idea is this. It seems like you're accepting that (at least in its current state, barring unknowable future discoveries) this is a technology that complements developers, making them more productive. If this is the case, then the question is how relevant this improvement is in quantitative terms. The cumulative improvements in developer productivity since the days of punching cards have easily been several hundred percent. A thought experiment to figure out how relatively impactful this is would be to compare it to other technologies and see which gives the greatest boost. My prior belief: somewhere around Intellisense level of useful, but not significantly more than that.

Closi 3y ago
Yes, I think the current state of technology (just starting) is a technology that complements developers. Although my personal belief is this is more likely going to be an improvement similar to Assembly -> C (even if the LLM component doesn't improve, but assuming that the tooling does improve). Personally I think there is going to be a new 'higher, higher level' of programming paradigms that are about to be invented that are supported by the ability of LLM's to write code - still augmenting humans, but making them many times more productive.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  I think the opposite - LLMs will cause programming language development to become stagnant because the language that compliments an LLM the best is the language that has the most code out there in the wild. So the "LLM language" already exists - its Javascript, Java, C#, etc.
  - Closi 3y ago
    I'm not talking about a language that an LLM outputs. I'm talking about a higher-level language that outputs Javascript, Java, C# etc (but presumably some sort of lower level byte-code in the future). A language where intent and clarity is more important than syntax or implementation details. Where menu_options = [process['name'] for process in processes if process['active']] is more clearly expressed as menu_options = list of the active process names (or something similar)

by qsort 3y ago

Closi 3y ago

Yes, I think the current state of technology (just starting) is a technology that complements developers. Although my personal belief is this is more likely going to be an improvement similar to Assembly -> C (even if the LLM component doesn't improve, but assuming that the tooling does improve). Personally I think there is going to be a new 'higher, higher level' of programming paradigms that are about to be invented that are supported by the ability of LLM's to write code - still augmenting humans, but making them many times more productive.

bcrosby95 3y ago
I think the opposite - LLMs will cause programming language development to become stagnant because the language that compliments an LLM the best is the language that has the most code out there in the wild. So the "LLM language" already exists - its Javascript, Java, C#, etc.
- Closi 3y ago
  I'm not talking about a language that an LLM outputs. I'm talking about a higher-level language that outputs Javascript, Java, C# etc (but presumably some sort of lower level byte-code in the future). A language where intent and clarity is more important than syntax or implementation details. Where menu_options = [process['name'] for process in processes if process['active']] is more clearly expressed as menu_options = list of the active process names (or something similar)