←back to thread

1479 points sandslash | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
politelemon ◴[] No.44316391[source]
The beginning was painful to watch as is the cheering in this comment section.

The 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 simply aren't making sense. They imply a kind of a succession and replacement and demonstrate a lack of how programming works. It sounds as marketing oriented as "Web 3.0" that has been born inside an echo chamber. And yet halfway through, the need for determinism/validation is now being reinvented.

The analogies make use of cherry picked properties, which could apply to anything.

replies(5): >>44316430 #>>44316538 #>>44316775 #>>44316921 #>>44326675 #
monsieurbanana ◴[] No.44316538[source]
> "Because they all have slight pros and cons, and you may want to program some functionality in 1.0 or 2.0, or 3.0, or you're going to train in LLM, or you're going to just run from LLM"

He doesn't say they will fully replace each other (or had fully replaced each other, since his definition of 2.0 is quite old by now)

replies(1): >>44316619 #
1. whiplash451 ◴[] No.44316619[source]
I think Andrej is trying to elevate the conversation in an interesting way.

That in and on itself makes it worth it.

No one has a crystal clear view of what is happening, but at least he is bringing a novel and interesting perspective to the field.