3 ms·

This went straight to the top of HN. I don't understand. The article doesn't offer much value. It's just saying that you shouldn't use an LLM as the business l

This went straight to the top of HN. I don't understand. The article doesn't offer much value. It's just saying that you shouldn't use an LLM as the business logic engine because it's not nearly as predictable as a program that will always output the same thing given the same input. Anyone who has any experience with ChatGPT and programming should already know this is true as of 2025. Just get the LLM to implement the business logic, check it, have it write unit tests, review the unit tests, test the hell out of it.

petesergeant 2y ago
Yep, that's exactly what it's saying. I wrote it because people kept asking me how I was getting ChatGPT to do things, and the answer is: I'm not. Not everything is obvious to everyone. As to why it went straight to the top, I think people resonate with the title, and dislike the buzziness around everything being described as an agent.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Honestly, I still don't understand the message you're conveying. So you're saying that ChatGPT helped you write the business logic, but it didn't write 100% of it? Is that your insight? Or that it didn't help you write any business logic at all and we shouldn't allow it to help us write business logic as well? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > So you're saying that ChatGPT helped you write the business logic, but it didn't write 100% of it? ChatGPT didn't write any business logic, and I'm really struggling to see how you got there from reading the article. The message is: don't use LLMs to execute any logic.
    - aurareturn 2y ago
      The message is: don't use LLMs to implement any logic. Too late. I've already asked it to implement logic and that code is in production used by millions of people. Seems to have worked fine. I disagree with your conclusion and I don't understand why people upvoted this article to the top of HN.
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        I changed the word to 'execute' in what I wrote to try and make it clearer to you.
        aurareturn 2y ago
        That is much clearer. The intro to your article is also very confusing. Don’t let an LLM make decisions or implement business logic: they suck at that. I build NPCs for an online game, and I get asked a lot “How did you get ChatGPT to do that?” The answer is invariably: “I didn’t, and also you shouldn’t”. I assumed that people are asking you how you got ChatGPT to code the NPC for you. Why would people ask you how ChatGPT is powering the NPC? ChatGPT does not have an API. OpenAI has APIs. ChatGPT is just an interface to their models. How can ChatGPT power your NPCs for an online game? Made no sense.
        petesergeant 2y ago
        I changed the word "implement" to "execute" on the blog post. Thank you for your feedback. As to: > Why would people ask you how ChatGPT is powering the NPC? Because they think LLM and ChatGPT are synonymous.
        aurareturn 2y ago
        I think changing the word from "execute" to "inference" is even clearer to be honest. Though it's much better than the original word choice. Because they think LLM and ChatGPT are synonymous. I still find it weird. 99.9999% of NPCs in video games are not LLMs. So why would people ask that question?
senordevnyc 2y ago
This article is not about the how, it’s about the why.
christianqchung 2y ago
Why do you think top upvoted posts have to be a 1:1 correlation of value? If you look at the most watched videos on youtube, the most popular movies, or sorted by top of all time on subreddits, the only correlation is that people liked them the most. The post has a catchy title and a (in my opinion) clear message about using models as API callers and fuzzy interfaces in production instead of as complex program simulators. It's not about using models to write code. Social media upvotes are less frustrating imo if you see it as a measurement of attention, not a funneling of value. Yes people like things that give them value but they also like reading things with a good title.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  The post has a catchy title and a (in my opinion) clear message about using models as API callers and fuzzy interfaces in production instead of as complex program simulators. It's not about using models to write code. I mean, the message is wrong as well. LLMs can provide customer support. In that case, it's the business logic.

petesergeant 2y ago

Yep, that's exactly what it's saying. I wrote it because people kept asking me how I was getting ChatGPT to do things, and the answer is: I'm not. Not everything is obvious to everyone. As to why it went straight to the top, I think people resonate with the title, and dislike the buzziness around everything being described as an agent.

aurareturn 2y ago
Honestly, I still don't understand the message you're conveying. So you're saying that ChatGPT helped you write the business logic, but it didn't write 100% of it? Is that your insight? Or that it didn't help you write any business logic at all and we shouldn't allow it to help us write business logic as well? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > So you're saying that ChatGPT helped you write the business logic, but it didn't write 100% of it? ChatGPT didn't write any business logic, and I'm really struggling to see how you got there from reading the article. The message is: don't use LLMs to execute any logic.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    The message is: don't use LLMs to implement any logic. Too late. I've already asked it to implement logic and that code is in production used by millions of people. Seems to have worked fine. I disagree with your conclusion and I don't understand why people upvoted this article to the top of HN.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      I changed the word to 'execute' in what I wrote to try and make it clearer to you.
      - aurareturn 2y ago
        That is much clearer. The intro to your article is also very confusing. Don’t let an LLM make decisions or implement business logic: they suck at that. I build NPCs for an online game, and I get asked a lot “How did you get ChatGPT to do that?” The answer is invariably: “I didn’t, and also you shouldn’t”. I assumed that people are asking you how you got ChatGPT to code the NPC for you. Why would people ask you how ChatGPT is powering the NPC? ChatGPT does not have an API. OpenAI has APIs. ChatGPT is just an interface to their models. How can ChatGPT power your NPCs for an online game? Made no sense.
        petesergeant 2y ago
        I changed the word "implement" to "execute" on the blog post. Thank you for your feedback. As to: > Why would people ask you how ChatGPT is powering the NPC? Because they think LLM and ChatGPT are synonymous.
        aurareturn 2y ago
        I think changing the word from "execute" to "inference" is even clearer to be honest. Though it's much better than the original word choice. Because they think LLM and ChatGPT are synonymous. I still find it weird. 99.9999% of NPCs in video games are not LLMs. So why would people ask that question?

senordevnyc 2y ago

This article is not about the how, it’s about the why.

christianqchung 2y ago

Why do you think top upvoted posts have to be a 1:1 correlation of value? If you look at the most watched videos on youtube, the most popular movies, or sorted by top of all time on subreddits, the only correlation is that people liked them the most. The post has a catchy title and a (in my opinion) clear message about using models as API callers and fuzzy interfaces in production instead of as complex program simulators. It's not about using models to write code. Social media upvotes are less frustrating imo if you see it as a measurement of attention, not a funneling of value. Yes people like things that give them value but they also like reading things with a good title.

aurareturn 2y ago
The post has a catchy title and a (in my opinion) clear message about using models as API callers and fuzzy interfaces in production instead of as complex program simulators. It's not about using models to write code. I mean, the message is wrong as well. LLMs can provide customer support. In that case, it's the business logic.