3 ms·

I dunno, magically fabricating a part is fundamentally different than magically deciding where and when to do so. AI can magically decide where to put small pi

I dunno, magically fabricating a part is fundamentally different than magically deciding where and when to do so. AI can magically decide where to put small pieces of code. Its not a leap to imagine that it will later be good at knowing where to put large pieces of code. I don't think it'll get there any time soon, but the boundary is less crisp than your metaphor makes it.

refulgentis 2y ago
> I dunno, magically fabricating a part is fundamentally different than magically deciding where and when to do so. Right. It sounds to me like you agree and are repeating the comment but are framing as disagreeable. I'm sure I'm missing something.
- NitpickLawyer 2y ago
  The person you replied to suggests that the analogy of a 3d printer building a part does not hold, as LLM-based coding systems are able to both "print" some code, and decide where and when to do so. I tend to agree with them. What people seem to miss about LLM coding systems, IMO: a) deciding on the capabilities of an LLM to code after a brief browser session with 4o/claude is comparable to waking up a coder in the middle of the night, and having them recite the perfect code right then and there. So a lot of people interact with it that way, decide it's meh, and write it off. b) most people haven't tinkered with with systems that incorporate more of the tools human developers use day to day. They'd be surprised of what even small, local models can do. c) LLMs seem perfectly capable to always add another layer of abstraction on top of whatever "thing" they get good at. Good at summaries? Cool, now abstract that for memory. Good at q/a? Cool, now abstract that over document parsing for search. Good at coding? Cool, now abstract that over software architecture. d) Most people haven't seen any RL-based coding systems yet. That's fun. ---- Now, of course the article is perfectly reasonable, and we shouldn't take what any CEO says at face value. But I think the pessimism, especially in coding, is also misplaced, and will ultimately be proven wrong.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    (D) includes me, and does sound fun. Got any references?
    - 12_throw_away 2y ago
      > Got any references? This is a good question, and I worry you won't get a response. Here is a pattern I've observed very frequently in the LLM space, with much more frequency than random chance would suggest: Bob: "Oh, of course it didn't work for you, you just need to use an ANA (amazing new acronym) model" Alice: "Oh, that's great, where can I see how ANA works? How do I use it?" ** Bob has left the chat **
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm sorry but if you're calling RL "ANA (amazing new acronym)" you're out of your depth on this one.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - NitpickLawyer 2y ago
      Saw a private demo, felt as giddy as I felt when deepmind showed Mario footage. No idea when it'll be out.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Right, AI is good and will be good. I agree with you 110%. I quit a well-paying job and have gone a year without salary on this premise :) However, I worry about the premise underlying your reply: a sense that this is somehow incompatible with the viewpoint being discussed. i.e. it's perfectly cromulent to both think LLMs are and will continue to be awesome at coding, even believe they get much better. And also that you could give me ASI today, and there'd be an incredible long tail of work and processes to reformulate to pull off replacing most labor. It's like having infinite PhDs available by text message. Unintuitively, not that much help. I can't believe I'm writing that lol. But here we are. Steve Sinfosky had a good couple long posts re: this on X that discuss this far better than I can.
rsynnott 2y ago
> AI can magically decide where to put small pieces of code. Magically, but not particularly correctly.

refulgentis 2y ago

> I dunno, magically fabricating a part is fundamentally different than magically deciding where and when to do so. Right. It sounds to me like you agree and are repeating the comment but are framing as disagreeable. I'm sure I'm missing something.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago
The person you replied to suggests that the analogy of a 3d printer building a part does not hold, as LLM-based coding systems are able to both "print" some code, and decide where and when to do so. I tend to agree with them. What people seem to miss about LLM coding systems, IMO: a) deciding on the capabilities of an LLM to code after a brief browser session with 4o/claude is comparable to waking up a coder in the middle of the night, and having them recite the perfect code right then and there. So a lot of people interact with it that way, decide it's meh, and write it off. b) most people haven't tinkered with with systems that incorporate more of the tools human developers use day to day. They'd be surprised of what even small, local models can do. c) LLMs seem perfectly capable to always add another layer of abstraction on top of whatever "thing" they get good at. Good at summaries? Cool, now abstract that for memory. Good at q/a? Cool, now abstract that over document parsing for search. Good at coding? Cool, now abstract that over software architecture. d) Most people haven't seen any RL-based coding systems yet. That's fun. ---- Now, of course the article is perfectly reasonable, and we shouldn't take what any CEO says at face value. But I think the pessimism, especially in coding, is also misplaced, and will ultimately be proven wrong.
- Filligree 2y ago
  (D) includes me, and does sound fun. Got any references?
  - 12_throw_away 2y ago
    > Got any references? This is a good question, and I worry you won't get a response. Here is a pattern I've observed very frequently in the LLM space, with much more frequency than random chance would suggest: Bob: "Oh, of course it didn't work for you, you just need to use an ANA (amazing new acronym) model" Alice: "Oh, that's great, where can I see how ANA works? How do I use it?" ** Bob has left the chat **
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      I'm sorry but if you're calling RL "ANA (amazing new acronym)" you're out of your depth on this one.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - NitpickLawyer 2y ago
    Saw a private demo, felt as giddy as I felt when deepmind showed Mario footage. No idea when it'll be out.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Right, AI is good and will be good. I agree with you 110%. I quit a well-paying job and have gone a year without salary on this premise :) However, I worry about the premise underlying your reply: a sense that this is somehow incompatible with the viewpoint being discussed. i.e. it's perfectly cromulent to both think LLMs are and will continue to be awesome at coding, even believe they get much better. And also that you could give me ASI today, and there'd be an incredible long tail of work and processes to reformulate to pull off replacing most labor. It's like having infinite PhDs available by text message. Unintuitively, not that much help. I can't believe I'm writing that lol. But here we are. Steve Sinfosky had a good couple long posts re: this on X that discuss this far better than I can.

rsynnott 2y ago

> AI can magically decide where to put small pieces of code. Magically, but not particularly correctly.