4 ms·
Then you apply LLMs in domains where things can be checked Indeed I expect to see a huge push into formally verified software just because sound mathematical p
by nextaccountic 10mo ago
Then you apply LLMs in domains where things can be checked
Indeed I expect to see a huge push into formally verified software just because sound mathematical proofs provide an excellent verifier to put into a LLM hardness. Just see how Aristotle has been successful at math, and it could be applied to coding too
Maybe Lean will become the new Python
https://harmonic.fun/news#blog-post-verina-bench-sota https://harmonic.fun/news#blog-post-verina-bench-sota
- filoeleven 10mo ago"LLMs reliably fail at abstraction." "This limitation will go away soon." "Hallucinations haven't." "I found a workaround for that." "That doesn't work for most things." "Then don't use LLMs for most things."
- baq 10mo agoUm, yes? Except ‘most things’ are not much at all by volume.
- johnfn 9mo ago"Autocomplete is great!" "It doesn't work in bash" "Then don't use it in bash." I don't see what's wrong with this argument, and I certainly don't see it as a proof that the particular technology is actually useless, as you seem to be suggesting.