←back to thread

322 points laserduck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
fsndz ◴[] No.42157451[source]
They want to throw LLMs at everything even if it does not make sense. Same is true for all the AI agent craze: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/langchains-s...
replies(10): >>42157567 #>>42157658 #>>42157733 #>>42157734 #>>42157763 #>>42157785 #>>42158142 #>>42158278 #>>42158342 #>>42158474 #
marcosdumay ◴[] No.42157567[source]
If feels like the entire world has gone crazy.

Even the serious idea that the article thinks could work is throwing the unreliable LLMs at verification! If there's any place you can use something that doesn't work most of the time, I guess it's there.

replies(5): >>42157699 #>>42157841 #>>42157907 #>>42158151 #>>42158574 #
ajuc ◴[] No.42157699[source]
It's similar in regular programming - LLMs are better at writing test code than actual code. Mostly because it's simpler (P vs NP etc), but I think also because it's less obvious when test code doesn't work.

Replace all asserts with expected ==expected and most people won't notice.

replies(4): >>42157802 #>>42157883 #>>42158103 #>>42158154 #
1. rsynnott ◴[] No.42158154[source]
I mean, define ‘better’. Even with actual human programmers, tests which do not in fact test the thing are already a bit of an epidemic. A test which doesn’t test is worse than useless.