6 ms·

"There's no learning curve" just means this guy didn't get very far up, which is definitely backed up by thinking that Copilot and other tools are all basically

"There's no learning curve" just means this guy didn't get very far up, which is definitely backed up by thinking that Copilot and other tools are all basically the same.

leptons 1y ago
Basically, they are the same, they are all LLMs. They all have similar limitations. They all produce "hallucinations". They can also sometimes be useful. And they are all way overhyped.
- trenchpilgrim 1y ago
  The amount of misconceptions in this comment are quite profound. Copilot isn't an LLM, for a start. You _combine_ it wil a selection of LLMs. And it absolutely has severe limitations compared to something like Claude Code in how it can interact with the programming environment. "Hallucinations" are far less of a problem with software that grounds the AI to the truth in your compiler, diagnostics, static analysis, a running copy of your project, runnning your tests, executing dev tools in your shell, etc.
  - leptons 1y ago
    >Copilot isn't an LLM, for a start You're being overly pedantic here and moving goalposts. Copilot (for coding) without an LLM is pretty useless. I stand by my assertion that these tools are all basically the same fundamental tech - LLMs.
    - noidesto 1y ago
      > I stand by my assertion that these tools are all basically the same fundamental tech - LLMs. Over generalizing. The synergy between the LLM and the client (cursor, Claude code, copilot, etc) make a huge difference in results.
    - phillipcarter 1y ago
      This is like saying every web app is basically the same fundamental tech - databases.
      - trenchpilgrim 1y ago
        Or that writing Python with notepad.exe and Jupyter are fundamentally the same.
rustybolt 1y ago
> "There's no learning curve" just means this guy didn't get very far up Not everyone with a different opinion is dumber than you.
- SadErn 1y ago
  This is all just ignorance. We've all worked with LLMs and know that creating an effective workflow is not trivial and it varies based on the tool.
  - antonvs 1y ago
    Define "not trivial". Obviously, experience helps, as with any tool. But it's hardly rocket science. It seems to me the biggest barrier is that the person driving the tool needs to be experienced enough to recognize and assist when it runs into issues. But that's little different from any sophisticated tool. It seems to me a lot of the criticism comes from placing completely unrealistic expectations on an LLM. "It's not perfect, therefore it sucks."
    - skydhash 1y ago
      I don’t think anyone expects perfection. Programs crash, drives die, and computers can break anytime. But we expect our tools to be reliable and not fight with it everyday to get it to work. I don’t have to debug Emacs every day to write code. My CI workflow just runs every time a PR is created. When I type ‘make tests’, I get a report back. None of those things are perfect, but they are reliable.
      - antonvs 1y ago
        If you work in a team, you work with other people, whose reliability is more akin to LLMs than to the deterministic processes you're describing. What you're describing is a case of mismatched expectations.
        skydhash 1y ago

"There's no learning curve" just means this guy didn't get very far up, which is definitely backed up by thinking that Copilot and other tools are all basically the same.

leptons 1y ago

Basically, they are the same, they are all LLMs. They all have similar limitations. They all produce "hallucinations". They can also sometimes be useful. And they are all way overhyped.

trenchpilgrim 1y ago
The amount of misconceptions in this comment are quite profound. Copilot isn't an LLM, for a start. You _combine_ it wil a selection of LLMs. And it absolutely has severe limitations compared to something like Claude Code in how it can interact with the programming environment. "Hallucinations" are far less of a problem with software that grounds the AI to the truth in your compiler, diagnostics, static analysis, a running copy of your project, runnning your tests, executing dev tools in your shell, etc.
- leptons 1y ago
  >Copilot isn't an LLM, for a start You're being overly pedantic here and moving goalposts. Copilot (for coding) without an LLM is pretty useless. I stand by my assertion that these tools are all basically the same fundamental tech - LLMs.
  - noidesto 1y ago
    > I stand by my assertion that these tools are all basically the same fundamental tech - LLMs. Over generalizing. The synergy between the LLM and the client (cursor, Claude code, copilot, etc) make a huge difference in results.
  - phillipcarter 1y ago
    This is like saying every web app is basically the same fundamental tech - databases.
    - trenchpilgrim 1y ago
      Or that writing Python with notepad.exe and Jupyter are fundamentally the same.

rustybolt 1y ago

> "There's no learning curve" just means this guy didn't get very far up Not everyone with a different opinion is dumber than you.

SadErn 1y ago
This is all just ignorance. We've all worked with LLMs and know that creating an effective workflow is not trivial and it varies based on the tool.
- antonvs 1y ago
  Define "not trivial". Obviously, experience helps, as with any tool. But it's hardly rocket science. It seems to me the biggest barrier is that the person driving the tool needs to be experienced enough to recognize and assist when it runs into issues. But that's little different from any sophisticated tool. It seems to me a lot of the criticism comes from placing completely unrealistic expectations on an LLM. "It's not perfect, therefore it sucks."
  - skydhash 1y ago
    I don’t think anyone expects perfection. Programs crash, drives die, and computers can break anytime. But we expect our tools to be reliable and not fight with it everyday to get it to work. I don’t have to debug Emacs every day to write code. My CI workflow just runs every time a PR is created. When I type ‘make tests’, I get a report back. None of those things are perfect, but they are reliable.
    - antonvs 1y ago
      If you work in a team, you work with other people, whose reliability is more akin to LLMs than to the deterministic processes you're describing. What you're describing is a case of mismatched expectations.
      - skydhash 1y ago