←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
JimmaDaRustla ◴[] No.44571157[source]
The author seems to imply that the "framing" of an argument is done so in bad faith in order to win an argument but only provides one-line quotes where there is no contextual argument.

This tactic by the author is a straw-man argument - he's framing the position of tech leaders and our acceptance of it as the reason AI exists, instead of being honest, which is that they were simply right in their predictions: AI was inevitable.

The IT industry is full of pride and arrogance. We deny the power of AI and LLMs. I think that's fair, I welcome the pushback. But the real word the IT crowd needs to learn is "denialism" - if you still don't see how LLMs is changing our entire industry, you haven't been paying attention.

Edit: Lots of denialists using false dichotomy arguments that my opinion is invalid because I'm not producing examples and proof. I guess I'll just leave this: https://tools.simonwillison.net/

replies(13): >>44571266 #>>44571325 #>>44571342 #>>44571439 #>>44571448 #>>44571473 #>>44571498 #>>44571731 #>>44571794 #>>44571923 #>>44572035 #>>44572307 #>>44572665 #
jdiff ◴[] No.44571266[source]
The IT industry is also full of salesmen and con men, both enjoy unrealistic exaggeration. Your statements would not be out of place 20 years ago when the iPhone dropped. Your statements would not be out of place 3 years ago before every NFT went to 0. LLMs could hit an unsolvably hard wall next year and settle into a niche of utility. AI could solve a lengthy list of outstanding architectural and technical problems and go full AGI next year.

If we're talking about changing the industry, we should see some clear evidence of that. But despite extensive searching myself and after asking many proponents (feel free to jump in here), I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI. If this is so foundationally groundbreaking, that should be a clear signal. Personally, I would expect to see an explosion of this even if the hype is taken extremely conservatively. But I can't even track down a few solid examples. So far my searching only reveals one-off pull requests that had to be laboriously massaged into acceptability.

replies(10): >>44571346 #>>44571362 #>>44571401 #>>44571454 #>>44571514 #>>44571545 #>>44571653 #>>44571865 #>>44571882 #>>44572188 #
JimmaDaRustla ◴[] No.44571545{3}[source]
> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI.

As I stated, you haven't been paying attention.

replies(6): >>44571568 #>>44571573 #>>44571593 #>>44571606 #>>44571623 #>>44571661 #
mcherm ◴[] No.44571593{4}[source]
A better-faith response would be to point out an example of such an open source codebase OR tell why that specific set of restrictions (open-source, active production, primarily AI) is unrealistic.

For instance, one might point out that the tools for really GOOD AI code authoring have only been available for about 6 months so it is unreasonable to expect that a new project built primarily using such tools has already reached the level of maturity to be relied on in production.

replies(2): >>44571681 #>>44571688 #
JimmaDaRustla ◴[] No.44571681{5}[source]
I don't have time to handhold the ignorant.

I do however have time to put forth my arguments now that I use LLMs to make my job easier - if it weren't for them, I wouldn't be here right now.

replies(2): >>44571700 #>>44571971 #
eddythompson80 ◴[] No.44571700{6}[source]
You don’t have time to post a link with an example. You have time to post a wall of text instead.
replies(1): >>44571715 #
JimmaDaRustla ◴[] No.44571715{7}[source]
My code isn't open source.
replies(1): >>44571721 #
1. eddythompson80 ◴[] No.44571721{8}[source]
Checkmate
replies(1): >>44571946 #
2. JimmaDaRustla ◴[] No.44571946[source]
You didn't checkmate anything.

You're perfectly capable of looking at the world around you. You're arguing in bad faith using a false dichotomy that I must be able to produce examples or my argument is not valid. You're trying to suck all the air out of the room and waste time.

https://tools.simonwillison.net/

ChECk MaTee

replies(1): >>44572153 #
3. slacktivism123 ◴[] No.44572153[source]
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Aside from that, I don't see how the collection of simple one-shot JavaScript wrappers (like "Extract URLs", "Word Counter", and "Pomodoro Timer") that you keep bringing up is related to your argument.