3 ms·

Then I'm questioning if the output is actually correct. That's just not a compelling use case. It makes far more sense to just hire junior engineers. Because t

Then I'm questioning if the output is actually correct. That's just not a compelling use case. It makes far more sense to just hire junior engineers. Because then they're actual engineers, and their knowledge base will grow and transfer over time. If you have proprietary systems, then it may make sense to train an LLM on those. But I would consider that a more "focused" use case. I just don't see the main value of AI being a glorified, generalized google search. There's potential here to automate tasks with MUCH less friction. Now business folk and people who understand processes (but not algorithms) can potentially automate business processes.

adamtaylor_13 2y ago
It makes sense to hire junior engineers for big businesses, sure. I think you underestimate how much work a solo developer can get done with GPT. Yesterday, I implemented a recursive PostgreSQL function to crunch some pretty complex tables to produce a new output. As a senior engineer, I knew the output I wanted and understood the trade offs, but I didn’t want to spend 3 whole days trying to figure out how to build the recursive function myself. Claude did it correctly in about 5 minutes, and then I spent another hour or two just tweaking and exploring alternate options. I think it also goes without saying that I could not handle this to a junior engineer. We’re quite clearly past the “GPT is only as good as a junior engineer” phase. It’s so different from anything else that’s ever existed. You could not do what I did yesterday without spending a LOT more time. Google would not have solved that problem, nor would a junior engineer.