←back to thread

416 points floverfelt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.316s | source
Show context
ares623 ◴[] No.45056350[source]
> Other forms of engineering have to take into account the variability of the world.

> Maybe LLMs mark the point where we join our engineering peers in a world on non-determinism.

Those other forms of engineering have no choice due to the nature of what they are engineering.

Software engineers already have a way to introduce determinism into the systems they build! We’re going backwards!

replies(6): >>45056412 #>>45056449 #>>45056511 #>>45056669 #>>45056797 #>>45059375 #
sodapopcan ◴[] No.45056449[source]
As pertaining to software development, I agree. I've been hearing accounting (online and from coworkers) of using LLMs to do deterministic stuff. And yet, instead of at least prompting once to "write a script to do X," they just keep prompting "do X" over and over again. Seems incredibly wasteful. It feels like there is this thought of "We are not making progress if we aren't getting the LLM to do everything. Having it write a script we can review and tweak is anti-progress." No one has said that outright, but it's a gut feeling (and it wouldn't surprise me if people have said this out loud).
replies(2): >>45056678 #>>45057325 #
tptacek ◴[] No.45056678[source]
This is the 2025 equivalent of the people who once wrote 2000 word blog posts about how bad it was to use "cat" instead of just shell redirection.
replies(1): >>45056995 #
sodapopcan ◴[] No.45056995[source]
These are hardly equivalent. One is someone preferring one deterministic way over another. The other is more akin to arguing that it's better to ask someone to manually complete a task for you instead of caching the instructions on your computer. Now if the LLM does caching then you have more of a point, I don't have enough experience there.
replies(1): >>45057504 #
1. ◴[] No.45057504[source]