Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by culll_kuprey on Thursday October 09, 2025 @03:00PM
(#45531680)
> When you see on tv that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend a toothpaste what do you do? Do you claim that brushing your teeth is a useless hype that's being pushed by big-tooth because they're exaggerating or misrepresenting what that means?
Only after schizophrenic dentists go around telling people that brushing their teeth is going to lead to a post-scarcity Star Trek world.
Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by laterium on Thursday October 09, 2025 @03:14PM
(#45531852)
It's a new technology which lends itself well to outrageous claims and marketing, but the analogy stands. The CEOs don't get to define the narrative or stand as strawman targets for anti-AI folks to dunk on, sorry. Elon has been repeating "self driving next year" for a decade+ at this point, that doesn't make what Waymo did unimpressive. This level of cynicism is unwarranted is what I'm saying.
Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by IanCal on Thursday October 09, 2025 @11:52PM
(#45535232)
You shouldn’t - that’s the point of the comparison. If some insane dentists started saying this you should not stop brushing your teeth!
Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by grey-area on Thursday October 09, 2025 @02:54PM
(#45531619)
So questioning the utility of LLMs for knowledge work is now akin to a conspiracy theory?
Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by laterium on Thursday October 09, 2025 @03:23PM
(#45531974)
Not what I said at all. Question it all what you want. But disproving outrageous CEO claims doesn't get you there. Whether LLMs are AGI/ASI that will replace everyone is seperate from whether they are useful today as tools. Attacking the first claim doesn't mean much for the second claim, which is the more interesting one.
Re:Two things LLM coding agents are still bad at
by grey-area on Saturday October 11, 2025 @12:43PM
(#45550558)
I'm questioning the basic utility. They are text generation machines. This makes them unsuitable for any work that requires accuracy or understanding, which is the vast majority of knowledge work.
The things they're saying are technically correct, the best kind of correct. The models beat human PhDs on certain benchmarks of knowledge and reasoning. They may write 70% of the easiest code in some specific scenario. It doesn't matter. They're useful tools that can make you slightly more productive. That's it.
When you see on tv that 9 out of 10 dentists recommend a toothpaste what do you do? Do you claim that brushing your teeth is a useless hype that's being pushed by big-tooth because they're exaggerating or misrepresenting what that means?