j3k3

One thing that irks me about this place is the great-confidence people make claims, when they have zero idea about stuff outside of their domain.

I know ten people who work across Accounting and Finance in high-level positions who have all told me that in the past few months, the LLM-steam has wore off and they aren't seeing any material benefits.

We have moved far-away from the notion of a factory work who's labour can easily be traced to the output.

I think in general we have to question what work one does - not in a negative way - I think its healthy to do so. Standard economic models and thinking are pretty dated and don't really reflect reality as the world of work evolves.

Price and quantity go in pairs.

As long as a pair exists on the demand curve, Apple can charge that price.

Lol thanks for your comment.

But a microwave does exactly what it says on the tin, every time, without fail.

LLMs require a lot more effort.

"cooking with an oven is more of a special occasion thing"

this is nuts! I use an oven every day dude - so its a special occasion is it?

The default method for cooking is using an oven or using a stove. Microwaving is for heating up left-overs for the most part.

One of the dangers of people who are too close to programming is that they think of life as binary.

I immediately turn off when I read extreme points of view. It tells me they are people that lack traits such as nuance - essentially time wasters.

"AI has already won. It's taking over. "

Man.. I suggest you touch some grass. You are living in a bubble.

"Now anyone can make something nobody gives a shit about."

lol nice one

Ultimately humans are the judge of reality, not LLMs.

How can you be a good judge? You must have very strong foundations and fundamental understanding.

Great post.

So the people who are claiming huge jumps in productivity in the workplace, how are they dealing with this 'review fatigue'?

Link? Genuinely curious to check it out.

At the same time you have astro-turfing from LLM producers though, so...

Id argue the read-write procedures are happening simultaneously as one goes along, writing code by hand.

There's nothing more annoying than the feeling of "oh FFS why you doing that?!".

Its amazing how right and wrong LLMs can be in the output produced. Personally the variance for me is too much... I cant stand when it gets things wrong on the most basic of stuff. I much prefer doing things without output from an LLM.

TBH it kinda makes sense why personal projects are where productivity jumps are much larger.

Working on projects within a firm is... messy.

Meta is doing something healthy - signalling that it is behind with its LLM efforts. Nothing wrong with that.

Exactly. I find it hilarious that the people down-voted my comment.

Like yeah sorry... not everyone has to be a risk-taker. Many people like to observe and await to see what new techniques emerge that can be exploited.

Lol you may be on to something there.. 'a code janitor'.

" this team is incredibly cooked in the long term" they're not actually.

People like you are making sunk expenditures whilst the models are evolving... they can just wait until the models get to 'steady-state' to figure out the optimal workflow. They will have lost out on far less.

A new way of operating is forced down your throat due to expectations of how the technology will evolve. What actually happens is highly variable - on the spectrum between a huge positive and negative surprise.

The people forcing it down you do not care about the long-term ramifications.

To me its just a natural evolution of the search engine.

And now looking back its an obvious outcome. The search engine of the time was the best way to find websites. But those websites grew in quantity and volume over time with information.. that information as we know is/was a vital input for LLMs.

Except a power tool works as it should each and every time. 100% reproducible. That's what's so great about it.

Can we stop with the lazy analogies? Everyone's read some variant of this on here by now. Come up with something that's genius to read.

Nailed it.

The design part is hard because you have to envision the object. Once you have a good idea and conceptialisation of the object, form is easy.

Why do you make such statements with confidence and bluster?

I personally think its better to be cautious and wait for improvements in tooling to rise. Its not always necessary to be the one to take a risk when there's plenty of others willing to do so, for which the outcomes can then be assessed.

Yeah thats a good example.

The reality is humans are really bad at knowing what is worth investing into.. until the object is there for all to see and critique.

Every idea sounds great until you spend resources getting into the subtleties and nuances.

Change 'good' for 'disciplined'.

Problem is.. discipline is hard for humans. Especially when exposed to a thing that at face-value seems like it is really good and correct.

Thats because an LLM can access breadth at any given moment that you cannot. That's the advantage it has.

E.g. quite often a sound (e.g. music) brings back memories of a time when it was being listened to etc.

Our brains need something to 'prompt' (ironic I know) for stuff in the brain to come to the front. But the human is the final judge (or should be) if what is wrong / good quality vs high quality. A taste element is necessary here too.

I think that captures a lot of the LLM debate.

There are people who just want an object produced that allows for some outcome to be achieved closer to the present.

And there are other people who want to ensure that object that is produced, will be maintainable, not break other parts of the system etc.

Neither party is wrong in what they want. I think there should naturally be a split of roles - the former can prototype stuff so other individuals in the organisation can critique whether it is a thing of value / worth investing in for production.