pdimitar

44 ms·

601.
by pdimitar 1y ago
Good question. I run it by the docs that intimidated me before. Because I did not ask the LLM for the code only; I asked it to fully explain what did it change and why.
602.
by pdimitar 1y ago
[flagged]
603.
by pdimitar 1y ago
You should have dropped the LLM, of course. They are not replacing us the programmers anytime soon. If they can be used as an enabler / booster, cool, if not, back to business as usual. You can only win here. You can't lose.
604.
by pdimitar 1y ago
Did you skip the "rigorously verify the LLM code" part of my comment on purpose, just to show contempt?
605.
by pdimitar 1y ago
Then don't use it? Nobody is making you. I am also barely using LLMs at the moment. Even 10% of the time would be generous. What I was saying is that I have tried different ways of interacting with LLMs and was happy to discover that t
606.
by pdimitar 1y ago
A super necessary context here is that I barely use LLM at all still. Maybe I should have said so but I figured that too much nuance would ruin a top-level comment and mostly casually commented on a tradeoff of using or not using LLMs. Wher
607.
by pdimitar 1y ago
Ah, I absolutely don't verify code in the mathematical sense of the word. More like utilize strong static typing (or hints / linters in weaker typed languages) and write a lot of tests. Nothing is truly 100% safe or free of bugs.
608.
by pdimitar 1y ago
You don't. That's why you don't use an LLM most of the time. I was talking about cases where either the tasks were too boring or required an expertise that I didn't have at the time. Thought it was obvious.
609.
by pdimitar 1y ago
We all do. But more often than not we have to learn to do surgical incisions in order to do our task for the day. It's what truly distinguishes a professional.
610.
by pdimitar 1y ago
I can't claim anything objectively because I never truly looked at it scientifically. I simply come from bad neighborhoods and the amount of times I heard "shhh, don't go there, people will see you" from guys who clearly
611.
by pdimitar 1y ago
Reduce, yes, absolutely. Eliminate -- no.
612.
by pdimitar 1y ago
[flagged]
613.
by pdimitar 1y ago
[flagged]
614.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Needlessly polarizing. I love coding since 12 years old (so more than 30 years at this point) but most work tasks I'm given are fairly boring and uninteresting and don't move almost any science or knowledge forward. Delegating par
615.
by pdimitar 2y ago
1. I work on enjoyable problems after I let the LLM do some of the tasks I have to do for money. The LLM frees me bandwidth for the stuff I truly love. I adore solving problems with code and that's not going to change ever. 2. Some of
616.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Absolutely. That's why I don't give the LLM the reins for long, nor do I tell it to do the whole thing. I want to keep my mind sharp and my abilities honed.
617.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Well, does not help that a lot of work tasks are meaningless drudgery that we collectively should have trivialized and 100% automated at least 20 years. That was kind of the core my point: a lot of work tasks are just plain BS.
618.
by pdimitar 2y ago
I don't know man, maybe prompt most of your work, eyeball it and verify it rigorously (which if you cannot do, you should absolutely never touch an LLM!), run a script to commit and push after 3 hours and then... work on whatever code
619.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Do you have a link to such a complete app? Would love to take a look and learn.
620.
by pdimitar 2y ago
In what programming language did you do this? Sounds like a nice mostly future-proof architecture.
621.
by pdimitar 2y ago
I don't disagree. In fact I also subscribe under the same philosophy. I was commenting on what I'm observing in most people I've met. But yeah, I'll agree I'm venturing into the clouds now and the discussion will be
622.
by pdimitar 2y ago
> I haven't had a chance to try Elixir's new type system (is it ready yet?) Sadly no, and it will likely not be fully ready for years still. It's not a funded work and only a few people are working on it (AFAICT) and the
623.
by pdimitar 2y ago
I extrapolated it from your statement: > But, you are right, the human fundamentally can never be satisfied That's usually associated with "they want more and more". If you feel that's wrong then just correct me and
624.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Nobody is "limiting" themselves to anything. That's not a counterargument you're making. We all deploy to production, dude. Strong static typing (Rust), even only dynamic strong typing + pattern matching (Elixir), are le
625.
by pdimitar 2y ago
You're tearing down a straw man. Your parent poster did not say it eliminates tests. He said static typing mean less tests. He didn't say static typing is a replacement for tests either. Why are you doing double misrepresentation?
626.
by pdimitar 2y ago
It matters the most in practice, actually. Much less production all-hands-on-deck situations. The fact that there still exist people to whom this is not painfully obvious is despairing me.
627.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Seems to me you are a bit overconfident that "we" (who is "we"?) understand how the brain works. F.ex. how does a neuron actively stretching a tentacle trying to reach other neurons work in your model? Genuine question,
628.
by pdimitar 2y ago
You are of course correct but let's not forget that humans get out of the woman's womb underdeveloped because a little more growth and the baby can't get out through the vagina. So it's a biological tradeoff. Working on
629.
by pdimitar 2y ago
> says who? I guess nobody is really saying it but it's IMO one really good way to steer our future away from what seems an inevitable nightmare hyper-capitalist dystopia where all of us are unwilling subjects to just a few dozen
630.
by pdimitar 2y ago
Agreed. And many others have thought about it before us. Scifi authors and scientists included.

More ›