3 ms·

90% of business software is a copy of something else. So a model that is good at modifying code that exists somewhere is quite valuable. Basically, any signific

by jeswin 2y ago

90% of business software is a copy of something else. So a model that is good at modifying code that exists somewhere is quite valuable. Basically, any significant incremental progress in an LLM's ability to mash up ideas/code (that it has seen previously) is getting upvoted - because there are many makers on HN and these new abilities can be applied to whatever they're working on.

rs186 2y ago
You just made that number up, didn't you? And 90% of what in business software? Ideas? Features? Implementation? I doubt 90% is the number for any of that, or LLM is good at any of those. Based on my own recent experience of LLMs (yes, switching between several different models) and seeing their disastrous performance on writing code for business logic that is just a little bit more specific, I am not convinced.
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
camdenreslink 2y ago
Even if that is true, a lot of business software is not public and not in the training set. And another thing to consider, is if you are copying software from another business you need to compete in some way. Yours needs to have more polish (LLMs are bad at this), or a unique feature, or a different focus. LLM copying another business will only allow you to compete on price, but not those other things.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  I think the premise of the argument is you don't need to compete in the marketplace because you can just tell the robots what you want and they will happily produce it. The fallacy that people are making is they look at the current state of things as 'the way it'll always be' while the AI companies, and I mean all the AI companies, are looking to corner the market so have no moral issues with taking out a whole swath of skilled jobs. The cost to compete with another business's software is a high-end GPU.

3 ms·

90% of business software is a copy of something else. So a model that is good at modifying code that exists somewhere is quite valuable. Basically, any signific

by jeswin 2y ago

rs186 2y ago
You just made that number up, didn't you? And 90% of what in business software? Ideas? Features? Implementation? I doubt 90% is the number for any of that, or LLM is good at any of those. Based on my own recent experience of LLMs (yes, switching between several different models) and seeing their disastrous performance on writing code for business logic that is just a little bit more specific, I am not convinced.
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
camdenreslink 2y ago
Even if that is true, a lot of business software is not public and not in the training set. And another thing to consider, is if you are copying software from another business you need to compete in some way. Yours needs to have more polish (LLMs are bad at this), or a unique feature, or a different focus. LLM copying another business will only allow you to compete on price, but not those other things.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  I think the premise of the argument is you don't need to compete in the marketplace because you can just tell the robots what you want and they will happily produce it. The fallacy that people are making is they look at the current state of things as 'the way it'll always be' while the AI companies, and I mean all the AI companies, are looking to corner the market so have no moral issues with taking out a whole swath of skilled jobs. The cost to compete with another business's software is a high-end GPU.