4 ms·
I think the problem with this one is that LLMs are somehow both unreasonably effective as well as unreasonably ineffective. Letting the code editor llms do thei
by setr 1y ago
I think the problem with this one is that LLMs are somehow both unreasonably effective as well as unreasonably ineffective. Letting the code editor llms do their suggestions, I’ve gotten a ton of useless boilerplate garbage suggestions, but periodically, a couple times of day, it suggests blocks of code that are far more complete, comprehensive and correct than it has any right to be.
Whether you’ll get the high IQ or low IQ LLM on the next suggestion is a crapshoot; how much consideration you give to either outcome (focus on the random instances of brilliance, or the constant stream of bullshit) drives the final perception.
- abalashov 1y ago> Whether you’ll get the high IQ or low IQ LLM on the next suggestion is a crapshoot I have heard theories from people--whose ideas I don't ordinarily consider to be in the realm of purely uninformed speculation--that this can vary depending on system-wide GPU load, and is throttled accordingly based on real-time demand by the major LLM providers. Whether it's true, I have no idea.
- emp17344 1y agoSounds like conspiratorial thinking to come to terms with the fact that LLMs are fundamentally non-deterministic text predictors. You can get dramatically different responses to the same question, and that’s just how the system works.
- abalashov 1y agoThat was my reaction as well, but I wondered.
- awfulneutral 1y agoThat has been my experience too. I recently turned it all off because I decided the amount of times it takes me 5x longer to accomplish something, in addition to the subtle increase of bugs, is not currently worth it. I guess I'll try it again in a few months.