Human coders are still better than LLMs

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by skydhash on Friday May 30, 2025 @11:30AM (#44137201)

I was referring as new as some orthogonal dimension in the same space. If we're referring to your definition, any slight changes in the parameters results in something new. I was arguing more about if the model knows about axes x and y, then it's output is constrained to a plane unless you add z. But more often than not it's output will be a cylinder (extruded from a circle in the x,y plane) instead of a sphere.

The same thing goes for image generation. Every picture is new, but it's a combination of the pictures it founds. It does not learn about things like perspectives, values, forms, anatomy,... the way an artist does which are the proper dimensions of drawing.

> that humans somehow exceed the Turing computable

Already done by Gödel's incompleteness theorems[0] and the halting problem[1]. Meaning that we can do some stuff that no algorithm can do.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Human coders are still better than LLMs by vidarh on Saturday May 31, 2025 @05:15AM (#44143030)

You completely fail to understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the halting problem if you think they are evidence of something humans can do that machines can not. It makes the discussion rather pointless if you lack that fundamental understanding of the subject.

[ Parent | on HN ]