3 ms·

Yes, and it doesn't matter. Writing code in programming languages is a skill/necessity created by us to instruct computers what we want them to do Initially i

by xtracto 1mo ago

Yes, and it doesn't matter. Writing code in programming languages is a skill/necessity created by us to instruct computers what we want them to do Initially in the 60s, this was done by connecting circuits one way or another (think ENIAC). Then we devised "programmable" computers and devised a bunch of codes (computer code instructions) that abstracted away those cables. The we created Programming Languages to further abstract away the hardware complexity, and to be able to write down our wishes in a way that is more transferable between us humans, but that is still computable by machines. But with LLMs and neural networks, at some point these abstractions wont be necessary. The computers will still be making computations, but the way we tell them what we want is going to evolve. It's fascinating.

badc0ffee 1mo ago
Not to detract from your point, but there were software-programmable computers in the 50s. Check out Usagi Electric's videos about the Bendix G-15, where he loads software from punched tape.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
foltik 1mo ago
Computers are useful because we can instruct them what we want to do precisely. It’s true we usually don’t care about all the details, which is why abstractions exist. An abstraction hides details by fixing them, and lets you specify the rest precisely. An LLM isn’t an abstraction in this sense any more than asking a coworker to do something is. The details are not fixed, but decided for you. If you can’t understand or modify what was decided yourself, the only interface left is going back and forth in natural language. So no, the abstractions won’t become unnecessary. The details don’t just go away. Plenty of people really don’t care about them, and for them the LLM is fine, but only because it’s gluing together the millions of LoC of existing libraries and frameworks where the details have already been fixed, overwhelmingly by humans. There will always be a need for human professionals who aftually understand all that obscure stuff, and per TFA, it’s looking like it won’t be the ones who went all in on AI.

by xtracto 1mo ago

badc0ffee 1mo ago

Not to detract from your point, but there were software-programmable computers in the 50s. Check out Usagi Electric's videos about the Bendix G-15, where he loads software from punched tape.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

foltik 1mo ago

Computers are useful because we can instruct them what we want to do precisely. It’s true we usually don’t care about all the details, which is why abstractions exist. An abstraction hides details by fixing them, and lets you specify the rest precisely. An LLM isn’t an abstraction in this sense any more than asking a coworker to do something is. The details are not fixed, but decided for you. If you can’t understand or modify what was decided yourself, the only interface left is going back and forth in natural language. So no, the abstractions won’t become unnecessary. The details don’t just go away. Plenty of people really don’t care about them, and for them the LLM is fine, but only because it’s gluing together the millions of LoC of existing libraries and frameworks where the details have already been fixed, overwhelmingly by humans. There will always be a need for human professionals who aftually understand all that obscure stuff, and per TFA, it’s looking like it won’t be the ones who went all in on AI.