3 ms·

The cost of current compute for current versions pf chatgpt will have dropped through the floor in 2 years, due to processing improvements and on die improvemen

by b112 2y ago

The cost of current compute for current versions pf chatgpt will have dropped through the floor in 2 years, due to processing improvements and on die improvements to silicon. Power requirements will drop too. As well, as people adopt, the output of training costs will be averaged over an ever increasing market of licensing sales. Looking at the cost today, and sales today in a massively, rapidly expanding market, is not how to assess costs tomorrow. I will say one thing, those that need gpt to code will be the first to go. Becoming a click-click, just passing on chatgpt output, will relegate those people to minimum wage. We already have some of this sort, those that cannot write a loop in their primary coding language without stackoverflow, or those that need an IDE to fill in correct function usage. Those who code in vi, while reading manpages need not worry.

ben_w 2y ago
> We already have some of this sort, those that cannot write a loop in their primary coding language without stackoverflow, or those that need an IDE to fill in correct function usage. > Those who code in vi, while reading manpages need not worry I think that's the wrong dichotomy: LLMs are fine at turning man pages into working code. In huge codebases, LLMs do indeed lose track and make stuff up… but that's also where IDEs giving correct function usage is really useful for humans. The way I think we're going to change, is that "LGTM" will no longer be sufficient depth of code review: LLMs can attend to more than we can, but they can't attend as well as we can. And, of course, we will be getting a lot of LLM-generated code, and having to make sure that it really does what we want, without surprise side-effects.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
> Those who code in vi, while reading manpages need not worry. That sounds silly at first read, but there are indeed people who are so stubborn to still use numbered zip files on a usb flash drive in stead of source control systems, or prefer to use their own scheduler over an RTOS. They will survive, they fill a niche, but I would not say they can do full stack development or be even easy to collaborate with.
whoisthemachine 2y ago
You had me until vi.

by b112 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

> We already have some of this sort, those that cannot write a loop in their primary coding language without stackoverflow, or those that need an IDE to fill in correct function usage. > Those who code in vi, while reading manpages need not worry I think that's the wrong dichotomy: LLMs are fine at turning man pages into working code. In huge codebases, LLMs do indeed lose track and make stuff up… but that's also where IDEs giving correct function usage is really useful for humans. The way I think we're going to change, is that "LGTM" will no longer be sufficient depth of code review: LLMs can attend to more than we can, but they can't attend as well as we can. And, of course, we will be getting a lot of LLM-generated code, and having to make sure that it really does what we want, without surprise side-effects.

nuancebydefault 2y ago

> Those who code in vi, while reading manpages need not worry. That sounds silly at first read, but there are indeed people who are so stubborn to still use numbered zip files on a usb flash drive in stead of source control systems, or prefer to use their own scheduler over an RTOS. They will survive, they fill a niche, but I would not say they can do full stack development or be even easy to collaborate with.

whoisthemachine 2y ago

You had me until vi.