5 ms·

Sounds good. In the future this kind of knowledge will differentiate those developers who take the time to learn how systems work to get the best performance an

Sounds good. In the future this kind of knowledge will differentiate those developers who take the time to learn how systems work to get the best performance and those who make a career out of copy/pasting out of LLMs without understanding what they're doing. Of course, it'll probably fail the AI code review mandated by SOC9. edit: apparently there is already a SOC3 so I had to up the number.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Or it will differentiate LLMs that give out answers that users want to hear and those, that don't.
diggan 3y ago
> Sounds good [...] out of LLMs without understanding what they're doing How does Gemini know that the author doesn't understand what they're doing? The context in the tweet isn't exactly great, but I'm not sure we should put the responsibility of what's safe or not to a glorified prediction machine. Fine, put some disclaimer that the outputted code could be unsafe in the wrong context, but to just flat out refuse to assist the user? Sounds like a bug if I was responsible for Gemini. (For the record, since I actually recognize the name of the tweet author, it's the person who's behind Garry's Mod and Facepunch Studios, I'm fairly confident they know what they're doing. But it's also besides the point.)
- badgersnake 3y ago
  My comment wasn’t intended to suggest the author of the tweet doesn’t know what they’re doing. It should not be taken that way.
  - diggan 3y ago
    As mentioned, it's besides the point that this specific author happens to be proficient enough. Why is it up to the LLM to decide if the author is proficient or not to be able to deal with the tradeoffs of the potential solution?
    - warkdarrior 3y ago
      If you don't like this model, build you own model, with blackjack, hookers, and blow.
      - badgersnake 3y ago
        Build your own model is never the answer when it comes to LLMs. At least not unless you have a truckload of VC funding. You can fine tune, you can RAG but starting from nothing is not going to be affordable.
yashasolutions 3y ago
It is nearly funny that when we got syntax code completion in the IDE, some people felt it was going to pervert the profession, with developer who don't know how to code and let the IDE complete the code for them. LLM are just tools and a lot of the code we write is far from being an expression of human brilliance, but far more often than not a redundant set instruction with some variations to get this or that API to work, and move data around. Honestly, to get some smart code generation that save us from soul crushing boilerplate is really useful. That's also why we have linters and other tools, to simply make our work more efficient.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Or it will differentiate LLMs that give out answers that users want to hear and those, that don't.

diggan 3y ago

> Sounds good [...] out of LLMs without understanding what they're doing How does Gemini know that the author doesn't understand what they're doing? The context in the tweet isn't exactly great, but I'm not sure we should put the responsibility of what's safe or not to a glorified prediction machine. Fine, put some disclaimer that the outputted code could be unsafe in the wrong context, but to just flat out refuse to assist the user? Sounds like a bug if I was responsible for Gemini. (For the record, since I actually recognize the name of the tweet author, it's the person who's behind Garry's Mod and Facepunch Studios, I'm fairly confident they know what they're doing. But it's also besides the point.)

badgersnake 3y ago
My comment wasn’t intended to suggest the author of the tweet doesn’t know what they’re doing. It should not be taken that way.
- diggan 3y ago
  As mentioned, it's besides the point that this specific author happens to be proficient enough. Why is it up to the LLM to decide if the author is proficient or not to be able to deal with the tradeoffs of the potential solution?
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    If you don't like this model, build you own model, with blackjack, hookers, and blow.
    - badgersnake 3y ago
      Build your own model is never the answer when it comes to LLMs. At least not unless you have a truckload of VC funding. You can fine tune, you can RAG but starting from nothing is not going to be affordable.

yashasolutions 3y ago

It is nearly funny that when we got syntax code completion in the IDE, some people felt it was going to pervert the profession, with developer who don't know how to code and let the IDE complete the code for them. LLM are just tools and a lot of the code we write is far from being an expression of human brilliance, but far more often than not a redundant set instruction with some variations to get this or that API to work, and move data around. Honestly, to get some smart code generation that save us from soul crushing boilerplate is really useful. That's also why we have linters and other tools, to simply make our work more efficient.