101–110 of 332 posts
> ANTHROPIC_MODEL=claude-3-haiku-20240307 Why?
Probably because of cost and speed. Imagine asking a tool to get a list of your Amazon orders. This experiment shows it might code a solution and execute it and come back to you in 60 seconds. You cannot rely on the results because LLMs are non-deterministic. If you use a thinking model like GPT-5, the same might take 10 minutes to execute and you still cannot rely on the results.
Here you’re paying for decreased upfront effort with per-request cost and response time (which will go down in future for sure). Eventually the cost and response time will both be low enough that it’s not worth the upfront effort of coding the solution. Just another amazing outcome of technology being on a continual path of improvement.
But “truly no-code” can never be deterministic - even though it’ll get close enough in future to be indistinguishable. And it’ll always be an order of magnitude less efficient than code.
This is why we have LLMs write code for us: they’re codifying the deterministic outcome we desire.
Maybe the best solution is a hybrid: after a few requests the LLM should just write code it can use to respond every time from then on.
It's orders of magnitude cheaper to serve requests with conventional methods than directly with LLM. My back-of-envelope calculation says, optimistically , it takes more than 100 GFLOPs to generate 10 tokens using a 7 billion parameter LLM. There are better ways to use electricity.
I realize it sounds inhuman, but so is working in enterprise IT! :)
Why would you need webapps when you could just talk out loud to your computer ? Why would I need programs with colors, buttons, actual UI ? I am trying to imagine a future where file navigators don't even exist : "I want to see the photos I took while I was in vacations last year. Yes, can you remove that cloud ? Perfect, now send it to XXXX's computer and say something nice." "Can you set some timers for my sport se…
Voice interfaces are not the be all and end all of communication. Even between humans we prefer text a lot of the time.
The fatal problem with LLM-as-runtime-club isn’t performance. It’s ops (especially security). When the god rectangle fails, there is literally nobody on earth who can even diagnose the problem, let alone fix it. Reasoning about the system is effectively impossible. And the vulnerability of the system is almost limitless, since it’s possible to coax LLMs into approximations of anything you like: from an admin dashboar…
For me it is predictability. I am a big proponent of AI tools. But even the biggest proponents admit that LLMs are non-deterministic. When you ask a question, you are not entirely sure what kind of answers you will get.
This behavior is acceptable as a developer assistance tool, when a human is in the loop to review and the end goal is to write deterministic code.
Why would you need webapps when you could just talk out loud to your computer ? Why would I need programs with colors, buttons, actual UI ? I am trying to imagine a future where file navigators don't even exist : "I want to see the photos I took while I was in vacations last year. Yes, can you remove that cloud ? Perfect, now send it to XXXX's computer and say something nice." "Can you set some timers for my sport se…
I think this is well illustrated in a lot of science fiction. Irregular or abstract tasks are fairly efficiently articulated in speech, just like the ones you provided. Simpler, repetitive ones are not. Imagine having to ask your shower to turn itself on? Or your doors to open? Contextualized to "web-apps," as you have; navigating a list maybe requires an interface. It would be fairly tedious to differentiate between…
As for repetitive tasks, you can just explain to your computer a "common procedure" ?
This is awesome, and proves that code, really, is a hack. People don’t want code. It sucks, it’s hard to maintain, it has bugs, it has to be updated all the time. Gross. What people want isn’t code - they want computers to do stuff for them. It just happens that right now, code is the best way you can do it. The paradigm WILL change. It’s really just a matter of when. I think the point you make that these are problem…
Here's why I don't get why people are badmouthing AI assist tools from Claude for Excel to Cursor to any new AI assist tool. Why not try it out, and if it doesn't work for you or creates more work for you, then ditch it. All these AI assist tools are just tools.
Anecdotally, I've seen people do just that. Say, "I've tried it, it either didn't help me at all, or it didn't help me enough to be worth messing with." But pretty consistently, such claims are met with accusations of not having tried it correctly, or not having tried it with the best/newest AI model, or not having tried it for long enough. Thus, it seems that if you don't agree with maximum usage of AI, you must be…
(And if I enjoyed being gaslighted, I'd just be using the LLMs in the first place.)