30 ms·

> As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. > Ironically, the best ans

> As long as the benefits outweigh the hazards, I use it. You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. > Ironically, the best answer to many of the article's suggestions... is to write your own software with LLMs. I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list?

nothrabannosir 1y ago
LLMs don’t but the problems you write for yourself using LLMs, do.
GMoromisato 1y ago
> You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. I agree. And I'm not saying the author is wrong--they have their preferences. I'm just saying that for me the benefits outweigh the risks, and I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). > I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list? The main suggestion from the author is to write your own custom software tuned to your needs instead of relying on a mass-market, one-size-fits-all piece of complex, expensive software that has to be monetized by dark patterns. I guess in a world where everyone knows how to program, and has the time and desire to do so, that would work. But in the real world, the only way to get the bulk of humanity to write their own software is with LLMs. I think it's ironic because I bet the author does not like LLMs.
- akkartik 1y ago
  Don't bet too much, because I'm still undecided on LLMs. Interestingly, I have no memory of ever thinking about LLMs as I wrote this. Part of it is I slaved over this talk a lot more than my usual blog posts, for about six months, after starting the initial draft in Dec 2022 (https://akkartik.name/post/roundup22 https://akkartik.name/post/roundup22). ChatGPT came out in Nov 2022. So I was following (and starting to get annoyed by) the AI conversations in parallel with working on this talk, but perhaps they felt like separate threads in my head and I hadn't yet noticed that they can impact one another. These days I've noticed the connections, and I feel the pressure to try to rationalize one in terms of the other. But I still don't feel confident enough to do so. And my training has always emphasized living with ambiguity until one comes up with a satisfying resolution. It took us 200 years from the discovery of telescopes[1] to attain some measure of closure on all the questions they raised. There's no reason to think the discovery of LLMs will take any less time to work through. They'll still be remembered and debated in a hundred years. Your hot takes or mine about LLMs will be long forgotten. In the meantime, it seems a good idea for me to focus on what I seem uniquely qualified to talk about. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140310031503/http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140310031503/http://tofspot.bl... is a fantastic resource.
  - GMoromisato 1y ago
    > And my training has always emphasized living with ambiguity until one comes up with a satisfying resolution. I wish more people had this attitude, particularly towards LLMs. We're at an interesting point in time where we don't know how LLMs will evolve. Maybe we've hit the plateau and LLMs won't get any better. Even in that case, it will take decades for their effect to be felt in the entire industry, much less the world. Or maybe they will continue to improve on their way to ASI. My point, though, is that if you're worried about user control over their computing environment (which I 100% understand), then LLMs might be the best solution. I think they could be the only practical solution, as all others seem like pipe dreams.
    - akkartik 1y ago
      It's not clear to me why you consider my approach a pipe dream. The only criticism I've heard is that people won't adopt it. Is that the only one? One critical question for you is: can someone rebuild a piece of software for themselves, from scratch, using LLMs, without changing radically in terms of how many neurons in their brain are devoted to programming? If they need to have real control here, they'll need to understand a lot about programming, build up a certain skeptical mindset in reviewing code, etc. That sort of requirement feels like it'll also affect adoption. If they do so without learning much about programming, then I'd argue they don't have much control. It's not them rebuilding the thing for themselves, it's the LLM rebuilding the thing for them. And that comes with the same sorts of Principal Agent problems as depending on other sorts of AIs like tech companies to do so. They'll find themselves awash in eldritch bugs, etc. So I think LLMs can't square this circle. If they want to not devote a lifetime to programming, user control using LLMs feels like more of a pipe dream than my approach. Because my approach depends crucially on personal relationships. There's no illusion that each person is getting personally customized software. Instead we're banding together in computational space as if we're travelling through medieval Asia -- using a caravan. Caravans had a natural limit in size, because larger caravans were easier to infiltrate with bandits. Managing those risks in a large caravan requires the geopolitical skills of a king to constantly see all the angles of who can screw you over at each point in time.
- akkartik 1y ago
  > I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). Oh yes. If you want to be like most people, you should stay right where you are. The question I'm interested in is: where should most people be? Are they where they should be? Is the current world the best we can do? I have no illusions about converting a large following. I just have different priorities than you, it seems.
  - GMoromisato 1y ago
    > Oh yes. If you want to be like most people, you should stay right where you are. I don't really have a choice. As a great philosopher said, I am what I am and that's all that I am. > The question I'm interested in is: where should most people be? Are they where they should be? Is the current world the best we can do? These questions can only be answered by actions. You're doing the right thing: you're creating the kind of software that you want to see in the world. That's really the highest service that a programmer can perform. I actually think we probably agree on how crappy most software is. But whereas your answer seems to be "depend less on software", my answer is to rebuild the whole (software) world from scratch. We'll see which one of us is crazier.

nothrabannosir 1y ago

LLMs don’t but the problems you write for yourself using LLMs, do.

GMoromisato 1y ago

> You and the author may be in agreement but with differing risk tolerance. I agree. And I'm not saying the author is wrong--they have their preferences. I'm just saying that for me the benefits outweigh the risks, and I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). > I don't think it's ironic but I do think it's false. How do LLMs satisfy a single requirement from the author's punchline list? The main suggestion from the author is to write your own custom software tuned to your needs instead of relying on a mass-market, one-size-fits-all piece of complex, expensive software that has to be monetized by dark patterns. I guess in a world where everyone knows how to program, and has the time and desire to do so, that would work. But in the real world, the only way to get the bulk of humanity to write their own software is with LLMs. I think it's ironic because I bet the author does not like LLMs.

akkartik 1y ago
Don't bet too much, because I'm still undecided on LLMs. Interestingly, I have no memory of ever thinking about LLMs as I wrote this. Part of it is I slaved over this talk a lot more than my usual blog posts, for about six months, after starting the initial draft in Dec 2022 (https://akkartik.name/post/roundup22 https://akkartik.name/post/roundup22). ChatGPT came out in Nov 2022. So I was following (and starting to get annoyed by) the AI conversations in parallel with working on this talk, but perhaps they felt like separate threads in my head and I hadn't yet noticed that they can impact one another. These days I've noticed the connections, and I feel the pressure to try to rationalize one in terms of the other. But I still don't feel confident enough to do so. And my training has always emphasized living with ambiguity until one comes up with a satisfying resolution. It took us 200 years from the discovery of telescopes[1] to attain some measure of closure on all the questions they raised. There's no reason to think the discovery of LLMs will take any less time to work through. They'll still be remembered and debated in a hundred years. Your hot takes or mine about LLMs will be long forgotten. In the meantime, it seems a good idea for me to focus on what I seem uniquely qualified to talk about. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140310031503/http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140310031503/http://tofspot.bl... is a fantastic resource.
- GMoromisato 1y ago
  > And my training has always emphasized living with ambiguity until one comes up with a satisfying resolution. I wish more people had this attitude, particularly towards LLMs. We're at an interesting point in time where we don't know how LLMs will evolve. Maybe we've hit the plateau and LLMs won't get any better. Even in that case, it will take decades for their effect to be felt in the entire industry, much less the world. Or maybe they will continue to improve on their way to ASI. My point, though, is that if you're worried about user control over their computing environment (which I 100% understand), then LLMs might be the best solution. I think they could be the only practical solution, as all others seem like pipe dreams.
  - akkartik 1y ago
    It's not clear to me why you consider my approach a pipe dream. The only criticism I've heard is that people won't adopt it. Is that the only one? One critical question for you is: can someone rebuild a piece of software for themselves, from scratch, using LLMs, without changing radically in terms of how many neurons in their brain are devoted to programming? If they need to have real control here, they'll need to understand a lot about programming, build up a certain skeptical mindset in reviewing code, etc. That sort of requirement feels like it'll also affect adoption. If they do so without learning much about programming, then I'd argue they don't have much control. It's not them rebuilding the thing for themselves, it's the LLM rebuilding the thing for them. And that comes with the same sorts of Principal Agent problems as depending on other sorts of AIs like tech companies to do so. They'll find themselves awash in eldritch bugs, etc. So I think LLMs can't square this circle. If they want to not devote a lifetime to programming, user control using LLMs feels like more of a pipe dream than my approach. Because my approach depends crucially on personal relationships. There's no illusion that each person is getting personally customized software. Instead we're banding together in computational space as if we're travelling through medieval Asia -- using a caravan. Caravans had a natural limit in size, because larger caravans were easier to infiltrate with bandits. Managing those risks in a large caravan requires the geopolitical skills of a king to constantly see all the angles of who can screw you over at each point in time.
akkartik 1y ago
> I'm betting most people are like me (at least outside HN). Oh yes. If you want to be like most people, you should stay right where you are. The question I'm interested in is: where should most people be? Are they where they should be? Is the current world the best we can do? I have no illusions about converting a large following. I just have different priorities than you, it seems.
- GMoromisato 1y ago
  > Oh yes. If you want to be like most people, you should stay right where you are. I don't really have a choice. As a great philosopher said, I am what I am and that's all that I am. > The question I'm interested in is: where should most people be? Are they where they should be? Is the current world the best we can do? These questions can only be answered by actions. You're doing the right thing: you're creating the kind of software that you want to see in the world. That's really the highest service that a programmer can perform. I actually think we probably agree on how crappy most software is. But whereas your answer seems to be "depend less on software", my answer is to rebuild the whole (software) world from scratch. We'll see which one of us is crazier.