←back to thread

224 points azhenley | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
mehulashah ◴[] No.45074995[source]
I do believe it’s time for systems folks to take a hard look at building systems abstractions on top of LLMs as they did 50 years ago on top of CPUs. LLMs are the new universal computing machines, but we build with them like we built computers in the 1950s - one computer at a time.
replies(6): >>45075043 #>>45075096 #>>45075104 #>>45075134 #>>45075169 #>>45075192 #
csmpltn ◴[] No.45075043[source]
This is the wrong take.

There's a point beyond which LLMs are an overkill, where a simple script or a "classic" program can outdo the LLM across speed, accuracy, scalability, price and more. LLMs aren't supposed to solve "universal computing". They are another tool in the toolbox, and it's all about using the right tool for the problem.

replies(1): >>45075057 #
mehulashah ◴[] No.45075057[source]
I shared your opinion for a while. But, that’s not what’s happening. People are using them for everything. When they do, expectations are set. Vendors will adjust and so will the rest of the industry. It’s happening.
replies(5): >>45075136 #>>45075186 #>>45075244 #>>45075250 #>>45075366 #
kibwen ◴[] No.45075244[source]
At the risk of being blunt, this comment reads like someone in the throes of religious euphoria. It makes no sense to call LLMs "the new universal computing machines". Please take a step back and reevaluate the media bubbles you're pickling your brain in.
replies(2): >>45077023 #>>45078030 #
1. mehulashah ◴[] No.45077023[source]
Trust me. I’m usually the last to jump on a bandwagon. That said, this is not just my take, but the take of many others that I trust. Andrej Karpathy, Joseph Hellerstein, etc.