3 ms·
By the time a junior dev graduates to senior, I expect that they'll be more reliable. In fact, at the end of each project, I expect the junior dev to have grown
by Yoric 1y ago
By the time a junior dev graduates to senior, I expect that they'll be more reliable. In fact, at the end of each project, I expect the junior dev to have grown more reliable.
LLMs don't learn from a project. At best, you learn how to better use the LLM.
They do have other benefits, of course, i.e. once you have trained one generation of Claude, you have as many instances as you need, something that isn't true with human beings. Whether that makes up for the lack of quality is an open question, which presumably depends on the projects.
- tkgally 1y ago> LLMs don't learn from a project. How long do you think that will remain true? I've bootstrapped some workflows with Claude Code where it writes a markdown file at the end of each session for its own reference in later sessions. It worked pretty well. I assume other people are developing similar memory systems that will be more useful and robust than anything I could hack together.
- intended 1y agoPermanently. There’s an interplay between two different ideas of reliability here. LLMs can only provide output which is somehow within training boundaries. We can get better at expanding the area within these boundaries. It will still not be reliable like code is.
- Yoric 1y agoFor LLMs? Mostly permanently. This is a limitation of the architecture. Yes, there are workarounds, including ChatGPT's "memory" or your technique (which I believe are mostly equivalent), but they are limited, slow and expensive. Many of the inventors of LLMs have moved on to (what they believe are) better models that would handle such learnings much better. I guess we'll see in 10-20 years if they have succeeded.