4 ms·
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here. Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using
by bcrosby95 1y ago
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here.
Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using AI instead of code.
So not Human -> AI -> Create Code -> Compile Code -> Code Runs -> The Magic Happens. Instead, it's Human -> AI -> The Magic Happens.
- finallyyes 1y ago[dead]
- __loam 1y agoThis industry is so tiring
- mattgreenrocks 1y agoDefinitely. And it gets more tiring the more experience you have, because you've seen countless hype cycles come and go with very little change. Each time, the same mantra is chanted: "but this time, it's different!" Except, it usually isn't. Started learning metal guitar seriously to forget about industry as a whole. Highly recommended!
- zie1ony 1y agoThis is great idea, until you have to build something.
- bmicraft 1y agoThe AI isn't much easier, when you consider the "AI" step is actually: create dataset -> train model -> fine-tune model -> run model to train a much smaller model -> ship much smaller model to end devices.
- imiric 1y agoSo... Who builds the AI? This is why I think the AI industry is mostly smoke and mirrors. If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Yet in the last year or so we've seen marginal improvements based mainly on increasing the scale and quality of the data they're trained on, and the scale of deployments, with some clever engineering work thrown in.
- trgn 1y ago> who builds the ai 3 to 5 companies iso of the hundreds of thousands who sell software now
- TeMPOraL 1y ago> If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Recursive self-improvement is literally the endgame scenario - hard takeoff, singularity, the works. Are you really saying you're dissatisfied with the progress of those tools because they didn't manage to end the world as we know it just yet?
- fellatio 1y agoNope. Just that 1. Is better than people. 2. Isn't better than people. Pick one! If the former then yes singularity. The only hope is it's "good will" (wouldn't bet on that) or turning off switches. If the latter you still need more workers (programmers or whatever they'll be called) due to increased demand for compute solutions.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago> Nope. Just that 1. Is better than people. 2. Isn't better than people. Pick one! That's too coarse of a choice. It's better than people at increasingly large number of distinct tasks. But it's not good enough to recursively self-improve just yet - though it is doing it indirectly: it's useful enough to aid researchers and businesses in creating next generation of models. So in a way, the recursion and resulting exponent are already there, we're just in such early stages that it looks like linear progress.
- autobodie 1y agoI don't think people are misinterpreting. People just don't find it convincing or intriguing.
- agarren 1y agoThat jibes with what Nadella said in an interview not too long ago. Essentially, SaaS apps disappear entirely as LLMs interface directly with the underlying data store. The unspoken implication being that software as we understand it goes away as people interface with LLMs directly rather than ~~computers~~ software at all. I kind of expect that from someone heading a company that appears to have sold-the-farm in an AI gamble. It’s interesting to see a similar viewpoint here (all biases considered)
- Vegenoid 1y ago> people interface with LLMs directly rather than software at all What does this mean? An LLM is used via a software interface. I don’t understand how “take software out of the loop” makes any sense when we are using reprogrammable computers.
- FridgeSeal 1y agoIt’s just…the vibe of it man! It’s LLM’s! They’ll just…do things! And stuff…it’ll just happen!!! Don’t worry about the details!!!!
- ethbr1 1y agoThe strongman for it would be: Our current computing paradigm is built on APIs stacked on APIs. Those APIs exist to standardize communication between entities. LLMs are pretty good at communicating between entities. Why not replace APIs with some form of LLM? The rebuttal would be around determinism and maintainability, but I don't think the strongman argument is weak enough to dismiss out of hand. Granted: these would likely be highly-tuned, more deterministic specialized LLMs.
- Vegenoid 1y agoMaybe this is a failure of my imagination, but I still don’t understand how “replace an API with an LLM” makes sense. LLMs just generate text, the only way they have of interacting with software is by generating text that the software can parse - a.k.a. an API call. Maybe I have some misconception here. I think seeing a program or system that is doing this “replace APIs with LLMs” thing would help me understand.
- obiefernandez 1y agoSelf plug: I wrote a whole bestselling book on this exact topic https://leanpub.com/patterns-of-application-development-using-ai https://leanpub.com/patterns-of-application-development-usin...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- adriand 1y agoIt’s like a friend of mine who has an AI company said to me: the future isn’t building a CRM with AI. The future is saying to the AI, act like a CRM.
- __loam 1y agoAnd it won't work as well as an actual crm because you've scrubbed all the domain knowledge of that software and how it ought to work out of the organization.