3 ms·

> I started programming over 40 years ago because it felt like computers were magic. They feel more magic today than ever before. Maybe they made us feel magic

by layer8 9mo ago

> I started programming over 40 years ago because it felt like computers were magic. They feel more magic today than ever before. Maybe they made us feel magic, but actual magic is the opposite of what I want computers to be. The “magic” for me was that computers were completely scrutable and reason-able, and that you could leverage your reasoning abilities to create interesting things with them, because they were (after some learning effort) scrutable. True magic, on the other hand, is inscrutable, it’s a thing that escapes explanation, that can’t be reasoned about. LLMs are more like that latter magic, and that’s not what I seek in computers. > We're literally living in the 1980s fantasy where you could talk to your computer and it had a personality. I always preferred the Star-Trek-style ship computers that didn’t exhibit personality, that were just neutral and matter-of-fact. Computers with personality tend to be exhausting and annoying. Please let me turn it off. Computers with personality can be entertaining characters in a story, but that doesn’t mean I want them around me as the tools I have to use.

cat_plus_plus 9mo ago
I have no idea what everyone is talking about. LLMs are based on relatively simple math, inference is much easier to learn and customize than say Android APIs. Once you do you can apply familiar programming style logic to messy concepts like language and images. Give you model a JSON schema like "warp_factor": Integer if you don't want chatter, that's way better than Star Trek computer could do. Or have it write you a simple domain specific library on top of Android API that you can then program from memory like old style BASIC rather than having to run to stack overflow for evwery new task.
- layer8 9mo ago
  You can’t reason about inference (or training) of LLMs on the semantic level. You can’t predict the output of an LLM for a specific input other than by running it. If you want the output to be different in a specific way, you can’t reason with precision that a particular modification of the input, or of the weights, will achieve the desired change (and only that change) in the output. Instead, it’s like a slot machine that you just have to try running again. The fact that LLMs are based on a network of simple matrix multiplications doesn’t change that. That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand.
  - orangecat 9mo ago
    That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand. Right, which is the point: LLMs are much more like human coworkers than compilers in terms of how you interact with them. Nobody would say that there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly.
    - layer8 9mo ago
      This thread is about what software developers like. It’s common knowledge that many programmers like working with computers because that’s different in specific ways from working with people. So saying that LLMs are just like people doesn’t help here.
      - abustamam 9mo ago
        Yeah there's a reason there is a stereotype/trope about programmers not liking people. I like a lot of people. But I would hate to work with many of them even if I like hanging out with them. That said, I do like having an LLM that I can treat like the crappy bosses on TV treat their employees. When it gets something totally wrong I can yell at it and it'll magically figure out the right solution, but still keep a chipper personality. That doesn't work with humans.
        kristofferR 9mo ago
        Kinda funny how we managed to type the exact same thought at the same time.
        abustamam 9mo ago
        You beat me by two mins :)
        fnord123 9mo ago
        Be careful. You get good at what your practice.
yason 9mo ago
> The “magic” for me was that computers were completely scrutable and > reason-able Yes, and computers were something that gave you powerful freedom. You could make a computer do anything it was physically able to as long as your mind could follow up. Computers followed logic, they didn't have opinions, they gave you full control of themselves and you would have unlimited control.

by layer8 9mo ago

cat_plus_plus 9mo ago

I have no idea what everyone is talking about. LLMs are based on relatively simple math, inference is much easier to learn and customize than say Android APIs. Once you do you can apply familiar programming style logic to messy concepts like language and images. Give you model a JSON schema like "warp_factor": Integer if you don't want chatter, that's way better than Star Trek computer could do. Or have it write you a simple domain specific library on top of Android API that you can then program from memory like old style BASIC rather than having to run to stack overflow for evwery new task.

layer8 9mo ago
You can’t reason about inference (or training) of LLMs on the semantic level. You can’t predict the output of an LLM for a specific input other than by running it. If you want the output to be different in a specific way, you can’t reason with precision that a particular modification of the input, or of the weights, will achieve the desired change (and only that change) in the output. Instead, it’s like a slot machine that you just have to try running again. The fact that LLMs are based on a network of simple matrix multiplications doesn’t change that. That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand.
- orangecat 9mo ago
  That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand. Right, which is the point: LLMs are much more like human coworkers than compilers in terms of how you interact with them. Nobody would say that there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly.
  - layer8 9mo ago
    This thread is about what software developers like. It’s common knowledge that many programmers like working with computers because that’s different in specific ways from working with people. So saying that LLMs are just like people doesn’t help here.
    - abustamam 9mo ago
      Yeah there's a reason there is a stereotype/trope about programmers not liking people. I like a lot of people. But I would hate to work with many of them even if I like hanging out with them. That said, I do like having an LLM that I can treat like the crappy bosses on TV treat their employees. When it gets something totally wrong I can yell at it and it'll magically figure out the right solution, but still keep a chipper personality. That doesn't work with humans.
      - kristofferR 9mo ago
        Kinda funny how we managed to type the exact same thought at the same time.
        abustamam 9mo ago
        You beat me by two mins :)
      - fnord123 9mo ago
        Be careful. You get good at what your practice.

yason 9mo ago

> The “magic” for me was that computers were completely scrutable and > reason-able Yes, and computers were something that gave you powerful freedom. You could make a computer do anything it was physically able to as long as your mind could follow up. Computers followed logic, they didn't have opinions, they gave you full control of themselves and you would have unlimited control.