4 ms·

Because it's working for a lot of people. There are people getting value from these products right now. I'm getting value myself and I know several other folks

by tyleo 7mo ago

Because it's working for a lot of people. There are people getting value from these products right now. I'm getting value myself and I know several other folks at work who are getting value. I'm not sure what your circumstances are but even if it's not true for you, it's true for many other people.

pydry 7mo ago
It's interesting that the people IRL I encounter who "get the most value" tend to be the devs who couldnt distinguish well written code from slop in the first place. People online with identical views to them all assure me that theyre all highly skilled though. Meanwhile I've been experimenting using AI for shopping and all of them so far are horrendous. Cant handle basic queries without tripping over themselves.
- tyleo 7mo ago
  > I've been experimenting using AI for shopping This is an interesting choice for a first experiment. I wouldn't personally base AI's utility for all other things on its utility for shopping.
  - pydry 7mo ago
    It's not a first experiment it's experiment 50 or 60 and, a reaction to AI gaslighting. Most people dont really understand coding but shopping is a far simpler task and so it's easier to see how and where it fails (i.e. with even mildly complex instructions).
    - tyleo 7mo ago
      Do you mind sharing examples of the prompts you are using?
- AStrangeMorrow 7mo ago
  Idk basically everyone is my org has seen some good value out of it. We have people complaining about limitations, but would still rather have that tooling than not. For me the main difference is now some people can explain what their code does. While some other only what it wants to achieve
- hermannj314 7mo ago
  If you are a 2600 chess player, a bot that plays 1800 chess is a horrendous chess player. But you can understand why all the 1700 and below chess players say it is good and it is making them better using it for eval? Don't worry, AI will replace you one day, you are just smarter than most of us so you don't see it yet.
  - roncesvalles 7mo ago
    The analogy of thinking of coding AI like it's chess AI is terrible. If chess AI was at the level of coding AI, it wouldn't win a single game. This kind of thinking is actually a big reason why execs are being misinformed into overestimating LLM abilities. LLM coding agents alone are not good enough to replace any single developer. They only make a developer x% faster. That dev who is now x% faster may then allow you to lay off another dev. That is a subtle yet critical difference.
    - lugu 7mo ago
      I like the chess analogy as it answer the question: why can't i see those gain? To adress your point, let's try another one analogy. Imagine secreterial assistants, discussing their risk of been replaced by computers in the 80s. They would think: someone still need to type those letters, sit next to that phone and make those appointments, I am safe. Computers won't replace me. It is not that AI will do all of your tasks and replace you. It is that your role as a specialist in software development won't be necessary most of the time (someone will do that, and that person won't call themselves a programmer).
      - roncesvalles 7mo ago
        Secretarial assistant as a profession is still very alive, and the title has been inflated to stratospheric heights (and compensation): "Chief of Staff"
      - pydry 7mo ago
        I imagine if they tried to replace typists with keyboards that produced plausible looking words that were entirely wrong half the time then we'd probably still have plenty of typists. I tend to find that the volume of automation predictions inversely correlates to how real they are. When capitalists actually have the automation tech they dont shout about it they just do it quietly and collect the profits. When, say, Bezos is worried about his unionizing workforce and wants to intimidate - that's when the hot takes and splashy media articles about billions invested in automation "coming for yer jerb" you read about get published.
- oro44 7mo ago
  Agreed. Im very confident the experts in every field are not all that impressed by LLMs, relative of course, to those who were 'meh' in the first place. Experts meaning those who actually understand the content, not simply regurgitate or repeat it on demand. I'd even go as far as to say there are many out there who have a feeling of disdain of the experts and want to see LLMs flourish because of this.

by tyleo 7mo ago

pydry 7mo ago

It's interesting that the people IRL I encounter who "get the most value" tend to be the devs who couldnt distinguish well written code from slop in the first place. People online with identical views to them all assure me that theyre all highly skilled though. Meanwhile I've been experimenting using AI for shopping and all of them so far are horrendous. Cant handle basic queries without tripping over themselves.

tyleo 7mo ago
> I've been experimenting using AI for shopping This is an interesting choice for a first experiment. I wouldn't personally base AI's utility for all other things on its utility for shopping.
- pydry 7mo ago
  It's not a first experiment it's experiment 50 or 60 and, a reaction to AI gaslighting. Most people dont really understand coding but shopping is a far simpler task and so it's easier to see how and where it fails (i.e. with even mildly complex instructions).
  - tyleo 7mo ago
    Do you mind sharing examples of the prompts you are using?
AStrangeMorrow 7mo ago
Idk basically everyone is my org has seen some good value out of it. We have people complaining about limitations, but would still rather have that tooling than not. For me the main difference is now some people can explain what their code does. While some other only what it wants to achieve
hermannj314 7mo ago
If you are a 2600 chess player, a bot that plays 1800 chess is a horrendous chess player. But you can understand why all the 1700 and below chess players say it is good and it is making them better using it for eval? Don't worry, AI will replace you one day, you are just smarter than most of us so you don't see it yet.
- roncesvalles 7mo ago
  The analogy of thinking of coding AI like it's chess AI is terrible. If chess AI was at the level of coding AI, it wouldn't win a single game. This kind of thinking is actually a big reason why execs are being misinformed into overestimating LLM abilities. LLM coding agents alone are not good enough to replace any single developer. They only make a developer x% faster. That dev who is now x% faster may then allow you to lay off another dev. That is a subtle yet critical difference.
  - lugu 7mo ago
    I like the chess analogy as it answer the question: why can't i see those gain? To adress your point, let's try another one analogy. Imagine secreterial assistants, discussing their risk of been replaced by computers in the 80s. They would think: someone still need to type those letters, sit next to that phone and make those appointments, I am safe. Computers won't replace me. It is not that AI will do all of your tasks and replace you. It is that your role as a specialist in software development won't be necessary most of the time (someone will do that, and that person won't call themselves a programmer).
    - roncesvalles 7mo ago
      Secretarial assistant as a profession is still very alive, and the title has been inflated to stratospheric heights (and compensation): "Chief of Staff"
    - pydry 7mo ago
      I imagine if they tried to replace typists with keyboards that produced plausible looking words that were entirely wrong half the time then we'd probably still have plenty of typists. I tend to find that the volume of automation predictions inversely correlates to how real they are. When capitalists actually have the automation tech they dont shout about it they just do it quietly and collect the profits. When, say, Bezos is worried about his unionizing workforce and wants to intimidate - that's when the hot takes and splashy media articles about billions invested in automation "coming for yer jerb" you read about get published.
oro44 7mo ago
Agreed. Im very confident the experts in every field are not all that impressed by LLMs, relative of course, to those who were 'meh' in the first place. Experts meaning those who actually understand the content, not simply regurgitate or repeat it on demand. I'd even go as far as to say there are many out there who have a feeling of disdain of the experts and want to see LLMs flourish because of this.