3 ms·
> I don't think you should use LLMs for something you can't master without. I'm not sure, I frequently use LLMs for well-scoped math-heavy functions (mostly fo
by diggan 1y ago
> I don't think you should use LLMs for something you can't master without.
I'm not sure, I frequently use LLMs for well-scoped math-heavy functions (mostly for game development) where I don't neccessarly understand what's going on inside the function, but I know what output I expect given some inputs, so it's easy for me to kind of blackbox test it with unit tests and iterate on the "magic" inside with an LLM.
I guess if I really stopped and focused on math for a year or two I'd be able to code that myself too, but every time I tried to get deeper into math it's either way too complex for me to feel like it's time well spent, and it's also boring. So why bother?
- jraph 1y agoI can't comment on your well-scoped case. I can still see it backfire (in terms of maintenance) but it does seem you are precocious and are limiting the potential damages, with your unit tests you are increasing at least the level of confidence you can have on the LLM output and it's on a very specific part of your code. I didn't have such cases in mind, was replying to the "navigate complexity at scales human cognition wasn't designed for" aspect.