4 ms·
The memory and compute requirements to develop and run these models make no sense if the marginal improvement in autocomplete is the big end result. They only m
by namaria 2y ago
The memory and compute requirements to develop and run these models make no sense if the marginal improvement in autocomplete is the big end result. They only make sense in a world where machine can derive intent from natural language and actually conform to what people mean when they ask for something. This is clearly a fantastical result that LLMs are very short of.
- nailer 2y agoIt’s interesting. I would’ve agreed that ‘driving intent from natural language is something that LLMs have fallen far short of’ maybe a month ago. Since then, I spent a week trying to get cursor to work, and after dealing dealing with all the bugs, and restarting the composer each time with a new prompt, was able to get what I would consider a quality output for a moderately complex app (a parimutuel betting market). The issue isn’t that LLMs are terrible, it’s the software like cursor is buggy and poorly written. It should know that I don’t want to use code from an old version of the library I am using because the new library I am using is already in my projects dependencies. It should let me set up preferences for different programming languages. And preferences for all programming languages. So when I give it a prompt, it looks at the dependencies and language rules I already have set up, adds those to the prompt and produces the quality output I’m seeing now without me having to manually specify all those things. Short version: LLMs rule the software is just shitty.
- otabdeveloper4 2y agoLLM's don't "know" anything, it's just a souped-up Stackoverflow search.
- Xmd5a 2y agoMy experience has been the opposite, I found cursor to be an improvement over comparable tools such as aider. I was able to write a plugin for ComfyUI (a 60k loc python/js codebase) in 2 hours thanks to semantic search. It's not an exercise I'm versed in. It wasn't that different from the kind of internal monologue I'd have held in my head had I done it on my own, including misguided confidence that gets crushed 5 minutes later as you read other parts of the code that show you had the wrong understanding of how it actually works. In this context, LLMs can be very useful because a ground truth already exists to compare their replies against.
- nailer 2y ago> My experience has been the opposite, I found cursor to be an improvement over comparable tools such as aider. That sounds like a similar finding to what I had (comparing to copilot in my own case). My point, which my post maybe didn’t make so well, was a huge amount of the prompt should’ve been written for me in order to get to an acceptable result sooner.
- meltyness 2y agoI see this and conclude the opposite that they were adhering to the principle. Basically AI writes the buggy code that is upsetting you. Similar experience trying to use GenAIScript, btw, and peering inside the box the code and product is pretty well incomprehensible.
- nailer 2y agoMy post above does not seem to be well written as it’s been frequently misinterpreted. Yes, the AI is writing the buggy parts that upset me but my point was creating a good quality prompt would’ve taken a lot less time if Cursor had had some reasonable defaults.
- senordevnyc 2y agoI totally agree. I think almost all coding could be done by today’s best LLMs, IF they had the right context and tooling. Using Cursor is sometimes like magic, but it also feels painfully clear that the LLM is being held back by a lack of information, leaving me to have to interface between the codebase and the LLM, in both directions. Selecting which files to include in context feels so stupid, and like something that will hopefully quickly go away.
- llm_trw 2y ago>The memory and compute requirements to develop and run these models make no sense There is the story that von Neumann flew off the handle the first time he saw an assembler. >>How dare you waste compute cycles on this frivolity? Just use machine code like everyone else.
- chongli 2y agoThere is the story that von Neumann flew off the handle the first time he saw an assembler. That was in the 1940s when labour was very cheap and compute was insanely expensive. We’re talking hundreds to thousands of programmers’ salaries for the cost of one computer.