←back to thread

Tools: Code Is All You Need

(lucumr.pocoo.org)
313 points Bogdanp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | 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 #
foobarbecue ◴[] No.44455475[source]
Hype cycle for drones and VR was similar -- at the peak, you have people claiming drones will take over package delivery and everyone will spend their day in VR. Reality is that the applicability is more narrow.
replies(6): >>44455895 #>>44456324 #>>44456606 #>>44457214 #>>44458356 #>>44460090 #
soulofmischief ◴[] No.44456324[source]
That's the claim for AR, not VR, and you're just noticing how research and development cycles play out, you can draw comparisons to literally any technology cycle.
replies(1): >>44458294 #
65 ◴[] No.44458294[source]
That is in fact the claim for VR. Remember the Metaverse? Oculus headsets are VR headsets. The Apple Vision Pro is a VR headset.
replies(2): >>44458402 #>>44459713 #
mumbisChungo ◴[] No.44458402[source]
The metaverse is and was a guess at how the children of today might interact as they age into active market participants. Like all these other examples, speculative mania preceded genuine demand and it remains to be seen whether it plays out over the coming 10-15 years.
replies(1): >>44458761 #
sizzle ◴[] No.44458761[source]
Ahh yes let’s get the next generation addicted to literal screens strapped to their eyeballs for maximum monetization, humanity be damned. Glad it’s a failing bet. Now sex bots might be onto something…
replies(2): >>44458801 #>>44466746 #
1. mumbisChungo ◴[] No.44458801[source]
It may or may not be a failing bet. Maybe smartphones are the ultimate form of human-data interface and we'll simply never do better.
replies(1): >>44459202 #
2. jrm4 ◴[] No.44459202[source]
I'll take your argument a bit further. The thing is -- "human-data" interfaces are not particularly important. Human-Human ones are. This is probably why it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to beat the smartphone; VR or whatever doesn't fundamentally "bring people closer together" in a way the smartphone nearly absolutely did.
replies(1): >>44459232 #
3. mumbisChungo ◴[] No.44459232[source]
VR may not, but social interaction with AR might be more palatable and better UX than social interaction while constantly looking down at at a computer we still call a "phone" for some reason.