News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:RLHF is just barely RL by littlestymaar on Thursday August 08, 2024 @06:12AM (#41189841)
“A precise enough specification is already code”, which means we'll not run out of developers in the short term. But the day to day job is going to be very different, maybe as different as what we're doing now compared to writing machine code on punchcards.
Re:RLHF is just barely RL by mattmanser on Thursday August 08, 2024 @08:21AM (#41190765)
Doubtful. This is the same mess we've been in repeatedly with 'low code'/'no code' solutions.

Every decade it's 'we don't need programmers anymore'. Then it turns out specifying the problem needs programmers. Then it turns out the auto-coder can only reach a certain level of complexity. Then you've got real programmers modifying over-complicared code. Then everyone realizes they've wasted millions and it would have been quicker and cheaper to get the programmers to write the code in the first place.

The same will almost certainly happen with AI generated code for the next decade or two, just at a slightly higher level of program complexity.

Re:RLHF is just barely RL by littlestymaar on Thursday August 08, 2024 @07:47PM (#41197573)
> Every decade it's 'we don't need programmers anymore'. Then it turns out specifying the problem needs programmers.

I literally refuted this in my comment…

That being said, some kind of “no-code” is not necessarily a bad idea, as long as you treat it as just an abstraction for people who actually are programmers, like C versus assembly, or high level languages vs C.

In fact I worked for a train manufacturer that had a cool “no code” tool to program automated train control software with automated theorem proving built in, and it was much more efficient than there former Ada implementation especially when you factor the hiring difficulties in.

Re:RLHF is just barely RL by littlestymaar on Friday August 09, 2024 @03:45AM (#41199641)
their*