4 ms·

> I'd argue back that LLMs likely have a better understanding of a11y conventions than I do as well. To make the obvious counterargument, “then you shouldn’t b

> I'd argue back that LLMs likely have a better understanding of a11y conventions than I do as well. To make the obvious counterargument, “then you shouldn’t be creating websites at all”. I don’t actually believe this, but I know people who do. Some would add “shouldn’t be allowed to”.

bakugo 4mo ago
I wonder what went so wrong that "if you don't understand [thing] you shouldn't be building [thing]" is now considered a controversial statement.
- kristianc 4mo ago
  That's not what I said, I said I likely understand it less than a 635B parameter LLM, and that using the LLM as a shortcut to that knowledge is something I'd consider perfectly acceptable. I might even become better at it through using the LLM.
  - layer8 4mo ago
    You need a certain understanding to be able to judge whether the output is adequate. I think the argument is against people who lack that understanding.
- fwip 4mo ago
  Well, there's degrees of understanding, as well as degrees of seriousness of the project. You can also learn a lot by building something. Some people are writing the Netflix homepage (where an outage costs millions of dollars), and some people are writing a blog for three readers.
- mathgeek 4mo ago
  If you're building bridges, this shouldn't be a controversial statement. Same if you're building cryptography software. It's debatable if the same should apply to the vast majority of software that is less critical.
- Filligree 4mo ago
  Keep in mind these are two different things. Not all websites need to be accessible.
- BizarroLand 4mo ago
  It has always been a controversial statement. How are you supposed to learn without doing? Who sets the bar for when you have achieved understanding? And finally, in specific instances of creating front ends that are inclusive for users, I would argue that being willing to receive feedback and improve is vastly more important than getting it right on the first try.

bakugo 4mo ago

I wonder what went so wrong that "if you don't understand [thing] you shouldn't be building [thing]" is now considered a controversial statement.

kristianc 4mo ago
That's not what I said, I said I likely understand it less than a 635B parameter LLM, and that using the LLM as a shortcut to that knowledge is something I'd consider perfectly acceptable. I might even become better at it through using the LLM.
- layer8 4mo ago
  You need a certain understanding to be able to judge whether the output is adequate. I think the argument is against people who lack that understanding.
fwip 4mo ago
Well, there's degrees of understanding, as well as degrees of seriousness of the project. You can also learn a lot by building something. Some people are writing the Netflix homepage (where an outage costs millions of dollars), and some people are writing a blog for three readers.
mathgeek 4mo ago
If you're building bridges, this shouldn't be a controversial statement. Same if you're building cryptography software. It's debatable if the same should apply to the vast majority of software that is less critical.
Filligree 4mo ago
Keep in mind these are two different things. Not all websites need to be accessible.
BizarroLand 4mo ago
It has always been a controversial statement. How are you supposed to learn without doing? Who sets the bar for when you have achieved understanding? And finally, in specific instances of creating front ends that are inclusive for users, I would argue that being willing to receive feedback and improve is vastly more important than getting it right on the first try.