Recurse Center made a good observation: > I expected to find vastly differing views of what future developments might look like, but I was surprised at just ho

Recurse Center made a good observation: > I expected to find vastly differing views of what future developments might look like, but I was surprised at just how much our alums differed in their assessment of where things are today. > We found at least three factors that help explain this discrepancy. First was the duration, depth, and recency of experience with LLMs; the less people had worked with them and the longer ago they had done so, the more likely they were to see little value in them (to be clear, “long ago” here may mean a matter of just a few months). But this certainly didn’t explain all of the discrepancy: The second factor was the type of programming work people cared about. By this we mean things like the ergonomics of your language, whether the task you’re doing is represented in model training data, and the amount of boilerplate involved. Programmers working on web apps, data visualization, and scripts in Python, TypeScript, and Go were much more likely to see significant value in LLMs, while others doing systems programming in C, working on carbon capture, or doing novel ML research were less likely to find them helpful. The third factor was whether people were doing smaller, more greenfield work (either alone or on small teams), or on large existing codebases (especially at large organizations). People were much more likely to see utility in today’s models for the former than the latter. — https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-ai https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-...