4 ms·
In software we are always 90% there. Is that 10% the part that gives us jobs. I don’t see LLMs that different from, let’s say, the time compilers or high level
by dakiol 1y ago
In software we are always 90% there. Is that 10% the part that gives us jobs. I don’t see LLMs that different from, let’s say, the time compilers or high level languages appeared.
- bpt3 1y agoUntil LLMs become as reliable as compilers, this isn't a meaningful comparison IMO. To put it in your words, I don't think LLMs get us 90% of the way there because they get us almost 100% of the way there sometimes, and other times less than 0%.
- Jensson 1y agoCompilers reliably solves 90% of your problems, LLM unreliably solves 100% of your problems. So yeah, very different.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoIf it's not reliable then the problem is not solved You've just moved the problem from "I can't solve this" to "I can't trust if the LLM solved this properly"
- CamperBob2 1y agoIf it makes money, the problem is solved. At least from the perspective of the people with the money. Less cynically, it doesn't matter whether some code was written by a human or an LLM -- it still has to be tested and accepted. That responsibility ultimately must end up on a human's desk.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nomel 1y agoThere is a level of reliability that is sufficient, as proven by us humans, the existence of issue trackers, and the entire industry that is software QA. And, further, the existence of offshore, low quality, contractors that are in such frequent use.
- xp84 1y agoPrecisely. The code I would get from that type of contractor had a similar reliability as what I generate today with nothing but the $20 a month level of AI stuff. Of course, we have the option of making the AI rewrite it in 2 minutes or so to fix its mistakes without waiting for it to be day there again. AI replacing outsourcing and (sadly) junior SWEs is more likely than it just eliminating coding jobs across the board. Lord help them when our generation of senior SWEs retires, though!
- bluefirebrand 1y ago[flagged]
- xp84 1y agoWhat problem? It's not my problem if my employer is screwed after my generation retires. That's the shareholders or owners' problem. The people making 2-10x my salary upstream of me in the org chart are being paid that presumably because they have such greater wisdom and foresight than I do. If I'm the CTO or have very significant equity, maybe I'll talk about restarting hiring of juniors. Otherwise I'll just sit and wait for the desperate consulting offers. It'll be like the COBOL boom in the late 90s. Note: That isn't my retirement plan, but it'll just be a fun source of extra money if I'm right.
- JustExAWS 1y agoThat’s not my problem. My incentive is that I have an open req and my job depends on my ability to get projects done on time, on budget and meets requirements. Why would I use my budget to hire a junior dev? They do negative work. Why would I when especially with remote work, I can hire a mid level developer or “senior” [sic] developer who lives in MiddleOfNowhere Nebraska who is willing to work cheaply? Even before remote work, you could easily pull a mid level developer with 3-5 years of experience who is probably underpaid for only 20% more than a junior dev. I will be living in Costa Rica somewhere retired by the time that is an industry problem best case or be able to command a higher salary best case.
- integralid 1y agoI disagree with this take. LLMs reliably solve 20% of my problem and are a gamble for a few percent more. There are problems that LLM is reliably not solving.
- Jensson 1y agoYou have a point, but people would just say "you use it wrong, just prompt better" and so on. The selling point is that it unreliably solves all your problems, "this model is PHD level intelligence!", compilers we know solves some problems and can't solve others, for LLM what they can actually do is very poorly understood by most since marketing oversells it so hard.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]