6 ms·

The evidence I've been seeing is that progress with LLMs have already slowed down and that they're nowhere near good enough to replace programmers. They can be

by lawn 2y ago

The evidence I've been seeing is that progress with LLMs have already slowed down and that they're nowhere near good enough to replace programmers. They can be useful tools ro be sure, but it seems more and more clear that they will not reach AGI.

cubefox 2y ago
They are already above average human level on many tasks, like math benchmarks.
- kranuck 2y ago
  If you ignore the part where there proofs are meandering drivel, sure.
  - cubefox 2y ago
    Even if you don't ignore this part they (e.g. o1-preview) are still better at proofs than the average human. Substantially better even.
- cudgy 2y ago
  So are calculators …
- lawn 2y ago
  Yes, there are certain tasks they're great at, just as AI has been superhuman in some tasks for decades.
  - cubefox 2y ago
    But now they are good or even great at way more tasks than before because they can understand and use natural languages like English.
    - lawn 2y ago
      Yeah, and they're still under delivering to their hype and the improvements have vastly slowed down.
- amusedcyclist 2y ago
  They really aren't better than humans at math or logic, they are good at the benchmarks because they are hyper optimized for the benchmarks lol. But if you ask LLMs simple logical questions they still get them wrong all the time