←back to thread

Tools: Code Is All You Need

(lucumr.pocoo.org)
313 points Bogdanp | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pclowes ◴[] No.44454741[source]
Directionally I think this is right. Most LLM usage at scale tends to be filling the gaps between two hardened interfaces. The reliability comes not from the LLM inference and generation but the interfaces themselves only allowing certain configuration to work with them.

LLM output is often coerced back into something more deterministic such as types, or DB primary keys. The value of the LLM is determined by how well your existing code and tools model the data, logic, and actions of your domain.

In some ways I view LLMs today a bit like 3D printers, both in terms of hype and in terms of utility. They excel at quickly connecting parts similar to rapid prototyping with 3d printing parts. For reliability and scale you want either the LLM or an engineer to replace the printed/inferred connector with something durable and deterministic (metal/code) that is cheap and fast to run at scale.

Additionally, there was a minute during the 3D printer Gardner hype cycle where there were notions that we would all just print substantial amounts of consumer goods when the reality is the high utility use case are much more narrow. There is a corollary here to LLM usage. While LLMs are extremely useful we cannot rely on LLMs to generate or infer our entire operational reality or even engage meaningfully with it without some sort of pre-existing digital modeling as an anchor.

replies(4): >>44455110 #>>44455475 #>>44455505 #>>44456514 #
whiplash451 ◴[] No.44455505[source]
Interesting take but too bearish on LLMs in my opinion.

LLMs have already found large-scale usage (deep research, translation) which makes them more ubiquitous today than 3D printers ever will or could have been.

replies(7): >>44455662 #>>44455664 #>>44456263 #>>44456415 #>>44456476 #>>44456575 #>>44458961 #
1. kibwen ◴[] No.44456476[source]
No, 3D printers are the backbone of modern physical prototyping. They're far more important to today's global economy than LLMs are, even if you don't have the vantage point to see it from your sector. That might change in the future, but snapping your fingers to wink LLMs out of existence would change essentially nothing about how the world works today; it would be a non-traumatic non-event. There just hasn't been time to integrate them into any essential processes.
replies(1): >>44456633 #
2. whiplash451 ◴[] No.44456633[source]
> snapping your fingers to wink LLMs out of existence would change essentially nothing about how the world works today

One could have said the same thing about Google in 2006

replies(1): >>44457064 #
3. kibwen ◴[] No.44457064[source]
No, not even close. By 2006 all sorts of load-bearing infrastructure was relying on Google (e.g. Gmail). Today LLMs are still on the edge of important systems, rather than underlying those systems.
replies(1): >>44457492 #
4. johnsmith1840 ◴[] No.44457492{3}[source]
Things like BERT are a load bearing structure in data science pipelines.

I assume there are massive number of LLM analysis pipelines out there.

I suppose it depends if you consider non determinist DS/ML pipelines "loadbearing" or not. Most are not using LLMs though.

3D parts regularly are used beyond prototyping though as tooling for a small company can be higher than just metal 3D parts. So I do somewhat agree but the loss of productivity in software prototyping would be a massive hit if LLMs vanished.