←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 5 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mg ◴[15 Jul 25 05:41 UTC] No.44568158[source]▶
In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipping, no waiting. This was the future. It was inevitable.

Yesterday I wanted to rewrite a program to use a large library that would have required me to dive deep down into the documentation or read its code to tackle my use case. As a first try, I just copy+pasted the whole library and my whole program into GPT 4.1 and told it to rewrite it using the library. It succeeded at the first attempt. The rewrite itself was small enough that I could read all code changes in 15 minutes and make a few stylistic changes. Done. Hours of time saved. This is the future. It is inevitable.

PS: Most replies seem to compare my experience to experiences that the responders have with agentic coding, where the developer is iteratively changing the code by chatting with an LLM. I am not doing that. I use a "One prompt one file. No code edits." approach, which I describe here:

https://www.gibney.org/prompt_coding

replies(58): >>44568182 #>>44568188 #>>44568190 #>>44568192 #>>44568320 #>>44568350 #>>44568360 #>>44568380 #>>44568449 #>>44568468 #>>44568473 #>>44568515 #>>44568537 #>>44568578 #>>44568699 #>>44568746 #>>44568760 #>>44568767 #>>44568791 #>>44568805 #>>44568823 #>>44568844 #>>44568871 #>>44568887 #>>44568901 #>>44568927 #>>44569007 #>>44569010 #>>44569128 #>>44569134 #>>44569145 #>>44569203 #>>44569303 #>>44569320 #>>44569347 #>>44569391 #>>44569396 #>>44569574 #>>44569581 #>>44569584 #>>44569621 #>>44569732 #>>44569761 #>>44569803 #>>44569903 #>>44570005 #>>44570024 #>>44570069 #>>44570120 #>>44570129 #>>44570365 #>>44570482 #>>44570537 #>>44570585 #>>44570642 #>>44570674 #>>44572113 #>>44574176 #
AndyKelley ◴[15 Jul 25 07:08 UTC] No.44568699[source]▶
You speak with a passive voice, as if the future is something that happens to you, rather than something that you participate in.
replies(7): >>44568718 #>>44568811 #>>44568842 #>>44568904 #>>44569270 #>>44569402 #>>44570058 #
stillpointlab ◴[15 Jul 25 07:34 UTC] No.44568842[source]▶
There is an old cliché about stopping the tide coming in. I mean, yeah you can get out there and participate in trying to stop it.

This isn't about fatalism or even pessimism. The tide coming in isn't good or bad. It's more like the refrain from Game of Thrones: Winter is coming. You prepare for it. Your time might be better served finding shelter and warm clothing rather than engaging in a futile attempt to prevent it.

replies(3): >>44568902 #>>44568942 #>>44569622 #
FeepingCreature ◴[15 Jul 25 07:52 UTC] No.44568942{4}[source]▶
Reminder that the Dutch exist.
replies(2): >>44569000 #>>44569206 #
stillpointlab ◴[15 Jul 25 08:04 UTC] No.44569000{5}[source]▶
They're not stopping the tide, they are preparing for it - as I suggested. The tide is still happening, it just isn't causing the flooding.

So in that sense we agree. Let's be like he Dutch. Let's realize the coming tide and build defenses against it.

replies(1): >>44569176 #
1. FeepingCreature ◴[15 Jul 25 08:36 UTC] No.44569176{6}[source]▶
They are kinda literally stopping the tide coming in though. They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely.

That is a thing that humans can do if they want it enough.

replies(2): >>44569477 #>>44569576 #
2. lucumo ◴[15 Jul 25 09:35 UTC] No.44569477[source]▶
> They're preparing for it by blocking it off completely.

No we don't. Quite the opposite. Several dams have been made into movable mechanic contraptions precisely to NOT stop the tide coming in.

A lot of the water management is living with the water, not fighting it. Shore replenishment and strengthening is done by dropping sand in strategic locations and letting the water take care of dumping it in the right spot. Before big dredgers, the tide was used to flush sand out of harbours using big flushing basins. Big canals have been dug for better shipping. Big and small ships sailed and still sail on the waters to trade with the world. A lot of our riches come from the sea and the rivers.

The water is a danger and a tool. It's not stopped, only redirected and often put to good use. Throughout Dutch history, those who worked with the water generally have done well. And similarly, some places really suffered after the water was redirected away from them. Fisher folk lost their livelihoods, cities lost access to trade, some land literally evaporated when it got too dry, a lot of land shrunk when water was removed, biodiversity dropped...

Anyway, if you want to use the Dutch waters as a metaphor for technological innovations, the lesson will not be that the obvious answer is to block it. The lesson will be to accept it, to use it, to gain riches through it: to live with it.

replies(1): >>44580204 #
3. stillpointlab ◴[15 Jul 25 09:54 UTC] No.44569576[source]▶
As the other commenter noted, you are simply wrong about that. We control the effects the tide has on us, not the tide itself.

But let me offer you a false dichotomy for the purposes of argument:

1. You spend your efforts preventing the emergence of AI

2. You spend your efforts creating conditions for the harmonious co-existence of AI and humanity

It's your choice.

replies(1): >>44580210 #
4. FeepingCreature ◴[16 Jul 25 09:06 UTC] No.44580204[source]▶
The difference is that right now we're looking at a giant onrushing wave and we're considering maybe building a few dinghies to "ride it out".

Please understand. We're not in a position where we have sophisticated infrastructure to carefully control AI development. We have nothing, and the waves are getting bigger every few months.

You're in a position where you're safe enough (after centuries of labor!) that you can decide to not block some amount of incoming water. That is not where we are at with AI. There is no dike.

5. FeepingCreature ◴[16 Jul 25 09:08 UTC] No.44580210[source]▶
As things stand, 2 is impossible without 1. There simply is not enough time to figure out safe coexistence. These are not projects of equal difficulty- 1 is enormously easier than 2. And 1 is still a global effort!