4 ms·
Which scam sorry?
by left-struck 24d ago
Which scam sorry?
- qsera 24d agoThe scam that is based on the implicit claim that LLM is a path to AGI. Seeing LLMs for what they really are will also make it clear they are fundamentally unfit for a lot of tasks they are currently marketed for...
- kleiba2 24d agoToo broad a statement, and without substantiation, to be taken serious, sorry.
- sublinear 24d agoToo shallow of a dismissal, and you don't determine what everyone else takes seriously. It's been several years now of LLMs only appeasing those with low expectations and inexperience. Unless the only goal was generating boilerplate or really sloppy proofs of concept, LLMs are a waste time for everyone else. This argument is so over already. We're all just hoping for a soft landing when the hangover really kicks in.
- pineaux 24d agoWhat about the mathematical advancements?
- sublinear 24d agoDoesn't that say more about the massive crumb tray nobody ever bothered to empty at the bottom of mathematics? I'm sure someone will point out something like the 4-color theorem as a counterargument. Where is that kind of theorem proving in this generation of AI? We seem to have hit a dead end rather quickly.
- brabel 24d agoYou are disconnected from reality. The whole industry is already completely dominated by LLMs generating code. Bury your head in the sand all you want. This is not about low expectations or inexperience at all. Your condescending tone doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look like an Amish who expects the industrial revolution is temporary and soon people will come to their senses and stop using all this nonsense industrial technology.
- Madmallard 24d agoYup and the industry is worse than ever. Maybe you forgot that important tidbit? People are using them because they're being shoved down their throats and they're complacent. Software quality, maintainability, exploitability, morale, competency are all at all-time lows and just worsening. It's really bad to defend this.
- imtringued 24d agoI spent the last 6 months reviewing all of the AI generated code primarily with gpt 5.3 codex but after I bought the subscription I also used gpt 5.5 and although I was constantly rejecting the bad code and I was mostly happy with the end result. Then they removed the approve everything manually mode and I thought, maybe I'm the one out of touch, I should try vibe coding. I gave it a big spec of things to implement and I was pretty vague on the details, but I was kind of hoping that the AI would get it right anyway. I noticed that when you let the AI just do its thing, you spend a lot of time staring at the screen waiting for it to finish. No wonder all these people are obsessed with parallel agents. Anyway, after a while it produced the end result and it was pretty bad and I don't even mean the code. This was with gpt 5.6 Terra. Definitively not the type of "did a week's worth of work in one hour" type of deal. Meanwhile if you guide it with your own technical skills the end result is a tireless code generator that operates at 80% of the quality of your own code but is only roughly 1.5x to 2x faster than doing it yourself. The biggest multipliers come from making the AI do things humans don't want to do, like writing a bunch of thorough tests but those don't translate into increased productivity, the opposite in fact. They translate into higher software quality but if you vibe the tests and don't review them, even that disappears.
- dboreham 24d agoI have 40+ years experience and extremely high standards. What you say is entirely wrong.
- Madmallard 24d agoIs it? They're borderline useless and certainly potentially inadvertently malicious for writing, customer service, speech to text, writing large amounts of complex code, therapy, medical diagnostics... the list goes on Sounds like you're part of the problem? It's really a serious problem just eroding the fabric of society in real-time. Being complacent in it or believing in the promise is just wholly foolish and bad for everyone.