4 ms·
It's not about typing, it's about writing. You don't type, you write. That's the paradigm. You can write with a pen or you can type a keyboard. Different ways,
by marcofloriano 9mo ago
It's not about typing, it's about writing. You don't type, you write. That's the paradigm. You can write with a pen or you can type a keyboard. Different ways, same goal. You write.
LLMs code for you. They write for you.
- daliusd 9mo agoSo does autocomplete. Why not treat LLM as next autocomplete iteration?
- witte 9mo agoCompletely different context though - you have to feed through your own data for autocomplete and even then it’s based on your own voice as a writer. When you no longer have to write - nor think about those things you’re writing - then your voice and millions of others will be drowned out by LLM trash.
- b40d-48b2-979e 9mo agoLLMs are generative and do not have a fixed output in the way past autocompletes have. I know when I accept "intellisense" or whatever editor tools are provided to me, it's using a known-set of completions that are valid. LLMs often hallucinate and you have to double-check everything they output.
- yunwal 9mo agoI don't know what autocomplete you're using but mine often suggests outright invalid words given the context. I work around this by simply not accepting them
- b40d-48b2-979e 9mo agoThe high failure rate of LLM-based autocompletes has had me avoid those kind of features altogether as they waste my time and break my focus to double-check someone else's work. I was efficient before they were forced into every facet of our lives three years ago, and I'll be just as efficient now.
- catlifeonmars 9mo agoPersonally, I configure autocomplete so that LSP completions rank higher than LLM completions. I like it because it starts with known/accurate completions and then gracefully degrades to hallucinations.
- marcofloriano 9mo agoBecause they are not. Autocomplete completes the only thing you already thought. You solve the problem, the machine writes. Mechanical. LLMs defines paths, ideas, choose routes, analyze and so on. They don't just autocomplete. They create the entire poem.
- daliusd 9mo agoSometimes. Usually LLM does exactly what I ask it. There is not like there are million ways - usually 4-10.
- NegativeLatency 9mo agoYou could build one like that, but most implementations I've seen cross the line for me. Hard to define but feels similar to the "I know it when I see it" or "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" definitions.
- autoexec 9mo agoWho'd want an autocomplete that randomly invents words and spellings while presenting them as real? It's annoying enough when autocomplete screws up every other ducking message I send by choosing actual words inappropriately. I don't need one that produces convincing looking word salad by shoving in lies too.
- daliusd 9mo agoI wonder why people have such completely different experience with LLM
- JohnFen 9mo agoAutocomplete annoys me, derails my train of thought, and slows me down. I'm happy that nobody forces me to use it. Likewise, I would greatly resent being forced to use LLMs.
- glial 9mo agoYesterday I had semi-coherent idea for an essay. I told it to an LLM and asked for a list of authors and writings where similar thoughts have been expressed - and it provided a fantastic bibliography. To me, this is extremely fun. And, reading similar works to help articulate an idea is absolutely part of writing. "LLMs" are like "screens" or "recording technology". They are not good or bad by themselves - they facilitate or inhibit certain behaviors and outcomes. They are good for some things, and they ruin some things. We, as their users, need to be deliberate and thoughtful about where we use them. Unfortunately, it's difficult to gain wisdom like this a priori.
- encyclopedism 9mo agoAs someone said "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes".
- xnx 9mo agoYou don't have to use them.
- encyclopedism 9mo agoYou're wrong in saying so. Many companies are quite literally mandating their use, do a quick search on HN.
- wahnfrieden 9mo agoOnly if you are already wealthy or fine with finding a new job If I were still employed, I would also not want my employer to tolerate peers of mine rejecting the use of agents in their work out of personal preference. If colleagues were allowed to produce less work for equal compensation, I would want to be allowed to take compensated time off work by getting my own work done in faster ways - but that never flies with salaried positions, and getting work done faster is greeted with more work to do sooner. So it would be demoralizing to work alongside and be required to collaborate with folks who are allowed to take the slow and scenic route if it pleases them. In other words, expect your peers to lobby against your right to deny agent use, as much as your employer. If what you really want is more autonomy and ownership over your work, rejecting tool modernity won't get you that. It requires organizing. We learned this lesson already from how the Luddite movement and Jacobin reaction played out.
- flatline 9mo agoI write what I want the LLM to do. Generating a satisfactory prompt is sometimes as much work as writing the code myself - it just separates the ideation from the implementation. LLMs are the realization of the decades-long search for natural language programming, dating at least as far back as COBOL. I personally think they are great - not 100% of the time, just as a tool.
- xnx 9mo ago> LLMs code for you. They write for you. A director is the most important person to the creation of a film. The director delegates most work (cameras, sets, acting, costumes, makeup, lighting, etc.), but can dive in and take low-level/direct control of any part if they choose.
- ffsm8 9mo agohave you actually done some projects with e.g. claude code? completely greenfield entirely up to yourself? because ime, youre completely wrong. I mean i get were youre coming from if you imagine it like the literal vibe coding how this started, but thats just a party trick and falls off quickly as the project gets more complex. to be clear, simple features in an existing project can often be done simply - with a single prompt making changes across mutliple files - but that only works under _some circumstances_ and bigger features / more indepth architecture is still necessary to get the project to work according to your ideas And that part needs you to tell the llm how it should do it - because otherwise youre rolling the dice wherever its gonna be a clusterfuck after the next 5 changes
- jstummbillig 9mo agoTo get the LLM to code for me, I need to write.