4 ms·
I'll say "maybe-sometimes works" is a misunderstanding. It feels like that initially, but that's no different from any new tool you adopt. A jackhammer also "m
by luckilydiscrete 9mo ago
I'll say "maybe-sometimes works" is a misunderstanding.
It feels like that initially, but that's no different from any new tool you adopt. A jackhammer also "maybe-sometimes works" as a hammer replacement.
- isodev 9mo agoEvery prompt is a run of probability - It’s at the core of the technology to be unable to give reproducible responses and even after a while, Claude is just as likely to sneak-in crimes in every snippet it outputs.
- jatora 9mo agolike the other commenter said. you need to learn to use new tools. and your take clearly indicates you haven't.
- lomase 9mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- dang 9mo agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lomase 9mo ago[dead]
- xpe 9mo ago> Every prompt is a run of probability - It’s at the core of the technology to be unable to give reproducible responses and even after a while, Claude is just as likely to sneak-in crimes in every snippet it outputs. Some readers might interpret "a run of probability" to mean "we can't say anything about the statistical distribution". I don't think the commenter means that, but still, communicating statistics is hard, so I suggest being careful. For example, writing "even after a while, just as likely to sneak-in crimes in every snippet it outputs" is pretty attention-getting and even provoking. What does the commenter mean by it? What kind of 'crimes' do they mean? Does the commenter really mean 'just as likely'? Just as likely as what? I would think most readers would form very different takes.
- cocoto 9mo agoNot true, most tools are deterministic. For instance my programming language LSP just works 100% of the time with no failure. It doesn’t hallucinate any types, methods or variables.
- wiseowise 9mo agoYour LSP also can’t do complex reasoning across the purpose of your whole codebase.
- lomase 9mo agoNeither LLM can reason about anything. Reasoning is an human trait.
- wiseowise 9mo agoWhatever you say lol.
- isodev 9mo agoThe usage of the word "reasoning" in the context of LLMs, just like the "I" in "AI", that's more marketing than a technical reality. I know it can be confusing.
- hu3 9mo agoRegardless of semanthics, LLMs + tooling can do impressive things. For example I can tell LLMs to scan my database schema and compare to code to detect drift or inconsistencies. And while doing that it has enough condensed world knowledge to point to me that the code is probably right when declaring person.name a non-nullable string despite the database column being nullable. And it can infer that date_of_birth column is correct in being nullable on the database schema and wrong in code where the type is a non-nullable date because, in my system, it knows date_of_birth is an optional field. This is a simple example that can be solved by non-LLMs tooling also. In practice it can do much more advanced reasoning with regards to business rules. We can argue semanthics all day but this is reason enough to be useful for me. There are many examples I could give. But to the skeptics I recommend trying to use LLMs for understanding large systems. But take your time to give it read only access to data base schema.
- teaearlgraycold 9mo agoCompletely depends on your domain. TypeScript web dev? Very good experience for a lot of tasks. Minecraft mod development? Don’t waste your time. I only have a few experiences to pull from so if anyone else has good data points give them.