5 ms·
This fundamental issue seems to be totally lost on the LLM-heads. I do not want additional uncertainty deep in the development cycle. I can tolerate the uncer
by chairhairair 2y ago
This fundamental issue seems to be totally lost on the LLM-heads.
I do not want additional uncertainty deep in the development cycle.
I can tolerate the uncertainty while I'm writing. That's where there is a good fit for these fuzzy LLMs. Anything past the cutting room floor and you are injecting uncertainty where it isn't tolerable.
I definitely do not want additional uncertainty in production. That's where the "large action model" and "computer use" and "autonomous agent" cases totally fall apart.
It's a mindless extension something like: "this product good for writing... let's let it write to prod!"
- usernameis42 2y agoSame goes with the real people, we all can do mistakes and AI Agents would get better over time, and will be ahead of many specialist pretty soon, but probably not perfect before AGI, just as we are.
- conorjh 2y agoyour software has real people in it?
- SkyBelow 2y agoIdeally it does. Users, super users, admins, etc. Though one might point out exactly how much effort we put into locking down what they can do. I think one might be able to expand this to build up a persona for how LLMs should interface with software in production, but too many applications give them about the same level of access as a developer coding straight into production. Then again, how many company leaders would approve of that as well if they thought it would get things done faster and at lower cost?
- layer8 2y agoOne of the advantages of automation has traditionally been that it cuts out the indeterminacy and variability inherent in real people.