←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.006s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.44568076[source]
There may be an "LLM Winter" as people discover that LLMs can't be trusted to do anything. Look for frantic efforts by companies to offload responsibility for LLM mistakes onto consumers. We've got to have something that has solid "I don't know" and "I don't know how to do this" outputs. We're starting to see reports of LLM usage having negative value for programmers, even though they think it's helping. Too much effort goes into cleaning up LLM messes.
replies(5): >>44568232 #>>44568321 #>>44568785 #>>44570451 #>>44578122 #
imiric ◴[] No.44568321[source]
> Look for frantic efforts by companies to offload responsibility for LLM mistakes onto consumers.

Not just by companies. We see this from enthusiastic consumers as well, on this very forum. Or it might just be astroturfing, it's hard to tell.

The mantra is that in order to extract value from LLMs, the user must have a certain level of knowledge and skill of how to use them. "Prompt engineering", now reframed as "context engineering", has become this practice that separates anyone who feels these tools are wasting their time more than they're helping, and those who feel that it's making them many times more productive. The tools themselves are never the issue. Clearly it's the user who lacks skill.

This narrative permeates blog posts and discussion forums. It was recently reinforced by a misinterpretation of a METR study.

To be clear: using any tool to its full potential does require a certain skill level. What I'm objecting to is the blanket statement that people who don't find LLMs to be a net benefit to their workflow lack the skills to do so. This is insulting to smart and capable engineers with many years of experience working with software. LLMs are not this alien technology that require a degree to use correctly. Understanding how they work, feeding them the right context, and being familiar with the related tools and concepts, does not require an engineering specialization. Anyone claiming it does is trying to sell you something; either LLMs themselves, or the idea that they're more capable than those criticizing this technology.

replies(8): >>44568512 #>>44568713 #>>44568924 #>>44569062 #>>44569220 #>>44569431 #>>44571044 #>>44574569 #
1. dmbche ◴[] No.44574569{3}[source]
Simple thought I had reading this:

I've used a tool to do a task today. I used a suction sandblasting machine to remove corrosion from a part.

Without the tool, had I wanted to remove the corrosion, I would've spent all day (if not more) scraping it with sandpaper (is that a tool too? With the skin of my hands then?) - this would have been tedious and could have taken me all day, scraping away millimeter by millimeter.

With the machine, it took me about 3 minutes. I necessitated 4-5 minutes of training to attain this level of expertise.

The worth of this machine is undeniable.

How is it that LLMs are not at all so undeniably efficient? I keep hearing people tell me how they will take everyones job, but it seems like the first faceplant from all the big tech companies.

(Maybe second after Meta's VR stuff)

replies(1): >>44575060 #
2. tines ◴[] No.44575060[source]
The difference is that LLMs are not like any other tool. Reasoning by analogy doesn't work when things are sufficiently in-analogous.

For example, people try to compare this LLM tech with the automation of the car manufacturing industry. That analogy is a terrible one, because machines build better cars and are much more reliable than humans.

LLMs don't build better software, they build bad software faster.

Also, as a tool, LLMs discourage understanding in a way that no other tool does.