3 ms·

>LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay

>LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay for this advice without involving the LLM. Assuming that passing some tests means it’s good code is as dumb as asking the LLM accounting and contract law advice. It can be superficially correct and completely broken.

lurk2 1y ago
> It can be superficially correct and completely broken. This also applies to developer output. If you don’t have someone qualified in the loop to foresee problems and perform testing, you could end up with something that falls over later on, but by the time that is consequential you can pay someone to do that kind of testing. By contrast, a dev who decides to be his own lawyer only gets to test the validity of his contracts if he hires a lawyer or gets sued.
- kortilla 1y ago
  That same thing happens with accountants and lawyers. I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. I don’t think you have a salient point here.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. The existence of bad surgeons doesn’t make performing surgery on yourself the better alternative. A sufficiently-motivated analyst can hack together an app and test it as he goes. Yes, there might be scaling issues and edge cases, but he’s putting together a proof of concept; once he has validated the market, the developers who build the app “correctly” are effectively interchangeable. There are questions of professional ethics if the software is touching anything to do with medicine, personal information, or other sensitive issues like that, but that does not represent a majority of development. If you mean “good” in the sense of being artful or efficient, then no one cares.

lurk2 1y ago

> It can be superficially correct and completely broken. This also applies to developer output. If you don’t have someone qualified in the loop to foresee problems and perform testing, you could end up with something that falls over later on, but by the time that is consequential you can pay someone to do that kind of testing. By contrast, a dev who decides to be his own lawyer only gets to test the validity of his contracts if he hires a lawyer or gets sued.

kortilla 1y ago
That same thing happens with accountants and lawyers. I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. I don’t think you have a salient point here.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lurk2 1y ago
  > I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. The existence of bad surgeons doesn’t make performing surgery on yourself the better alternative. A sufficiently-motivated analyst can hack together an app and test it as he goes. Yes, there might be scaling issues and edge cases, but he’s putting together a proof of concept; once he has validated the market, the developers who build the app “correctly” are effectively interchangeable. There are questions of professional ethics if the software is touching anything to do with medicine, personal information, or other sensitive issues like that, but that does not represent a majority of development. If you mean “good” in the sense of being artful or efficient, then no one cares.