5 ms·
Kind of similar to Agentic coding. The code works? Yay, well done, AI. It't doesn't? You didn't prompt it correctly.
by lukax 11mo ago
Kind of similar to Agentic coding. The code works? Yay, well done, AI. It't doesn't? You didn't prompt it correctly.
- ares623 11mo agoSaved 20 minutes of your time? Slack goes wild. Wasted 1 hour each of your 5 co-workers who ended up reviewing unusable slop? Silence.
- ben_w 11mo agoI hear you, but GenAI also gets the opposite fork from people who hate it: It's good result that used GenAI at any point => your prompting and curation and editing is worthless and deserves no credit; it's not good result => that proves AI isn't real intelligence. As with Marmite, I find it very strange to be surrounded by a very big loud cultural divide where I am firmly in the middle. Unlike Marmite, I wonder if I'm only in "the middle" because of the extremities on both ends…
- coliveira 11mo agoThis scam is true for all AI technologies. It only "works" as far as we interpret it as working. LLMs generate text. If it answers our question, we say that the LLM works. If it doesn't, we say that it is "hallucinating".
- adocomplete 11mo agoHow is that any different from Googling something and believing any of the highly-SEO optimized results that pollute the front page?
- coliveira 11mo agoThat's the point, nobody really believes there is an intelligence generating Google results. It is a best-effort based engine. However, people have this belief that ChatGPT has somehow some intelligent engine generating results, which is incorrect. It is only generating statistically good results; if it is true or false depends on what the person using it will do with the results. If it is poetry, for example, it is always true. If it is how to find the cure for cancer it will with very high probability be false. But if you're writing a novel about a scientist finding a cure for cancer, then that same response will be great.
- CamperBob2 11mo agoSo "statistics" are enough to take gold at IMO?
- ares623 11mo agoSearch engines didn't need $500B and growing in CAPEX.
- pmarreck 11mo agoIt's not a scam because it does make you code faster even if you must review everything and possibly correct (either manually or via instruction) some things. As far as hallucinations go, it is useful as long as its reliability is above a certain (high) percentage. I actually tried to come up with a "perceived utility" function as a function of reliability: U(r)=Umax ⋅e^(−k(100−r)^n) with k=0.025 and n=1.5 is the best I came up with, plotted here: https://imgur.com/gallery/reliability-utility-function-u-r-umax-e-k-100-r-n-IFgRvNv https://imgur.com/gallery/reliability-utility-function-u-r-u...
- paul7986 11mo agoIm sorta beginning to think some LLM/AI stuff is the Wizard of Oz(a fake it before you make it facade). Like why can an LLM create a nicely designed website for me but asking it to do edits and changes to the design is a complete joke. Lots of the time it creates another brand new design (not what i asked all) and it's attempts at editing it LOL. It makes me think it does no design at all rather it just went and grab one from the ethers of the Internet acting like it created it.
- coliveira 11mo ago> it does no design at all rather it just went and grab one from the ethers of the Internet Bingo. It just "remembers" one of the many designs it has seen before.
- ryandrake 11mo ago"Trust me, bro, it works" has become kind of a theme song to these guys.
- whynotmaybe 11mo agoApple did it successfully, it's a marvelous ecosystem, but when there's an issue, it's because you're not holding it the correct way.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo agoAgentic code doesn’t kill people. Tesla drivers who think they own a Waymo do.
- reppap 11mo agoWe're just waiting for AI code in a Therac-25 type device.