3 ms·
It wasn't the writing style, it was the "let's put AI in it" content that triggered me. No, it's not a valid idea, trusting LLMs with this would be plain catast
by pmlnr 3y ago
It wasn't the writing style, it was the "let's put AI in it" content that triggered me. No, it's not a valid idea, trusting LLMs with this would be plain catastrophic with all it's hallucinations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- barfbagginus 3y agoYou're assuming a few things: 1. I'm using GPT 3.5 level LLMs 2. I'm not using humans in the loop to verify solutions 3. I'm not using testing or self-correcting strategies to verify and correct solutions Given these assumptions, then I agree - hallucinations eat your lunch, big time. What I proposing is using GPT4 to annotate existing solutions and propose drafts, with humans in the loop to approve and revise, and self-correcting workflows to test solutions. And I'm basing this off my own experience with upgrading project build and packaging systems, using the AI to annotate, draft, fix errors, etc. I have full oversight over the final solution. And it has to be simple and clean, or I write another draft. The result is that I can understand and upgrade build and packaging solutions maybe five or ten times faster than I ever could before. Even quite cryptic legacy systems that I would never touch before. Now multiply that times every open source developer in the world. That's why I think we could execute a major build and packaging modernization effort.