4 ms·
This feels like the beginning of a wonderful friendship between me and the LLMS. I work as a fractional CTO. One of the things that frustrate me is when my clie
by bjornsing 1y ago
This feels like the beginning of a wonderful friendship between me and the LLMS. I work as a fractional CTO. One of the things that frustrate me is when my clients have various idiosyncratic naming conventions on things, eg there’s a ”dev” and a ”prod” environment on AWS, but then there’s a ”test” and ”production” environment in Expo. It just needlessly consumes brain cycles, especially when you’re working with multiple clients. I guess it’s the same for the LLMs, just on a massive scale.
In general I think it’s great whenever some weight / synapse strength bits can be reallocated from idiosyncratic API naming / behavior towards real semantics.
- PaulRobinson 1y agoAs the old joke goes: there are two hard problems in computer science - cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors Naming things doesn’t get easier just because you bring an LLM to do it based on an incoherent stochastic process. Have you asked why those environments have not been renamed to align? As a former CTO I’d see it immediately as a signal of poor communication, poor standards adoption, or both. It’s this low hanging stuff that you can fix relatively easily where you’re actually using that work to make the culture better and make people care more. Don’t outsource things you should care about a lot. Naming things is something you shouldn’t be hand waving away to a model.
- bjornsing 1y agoSure, I can spend my days doing that. But I appreciate the help (from the LLMs). And I think we actually have the same goal function: we want to make naming more compressible, less unexpected. You can call that culture (and it is) but you can also see it as pure information theory.