Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LLM Inevitabilism

tomrenner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#201

Post by godelski »

mdavid626 wrote: post #126
mg wrote: post #70

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipp…

We’ll have to split up software development between such AI coders and proper developers. Let AI coders suffer in their own mess.

The problem is Lemon Markets[0]

Lemon Markets do not happen because people do not want "peaches". Lemon markets happen because consumers cannot differentiate a lemon from a peach, at least at time of purchase. There can be high demand for peaches, and even producers of peaches. But if customers can't find out if they bought a lemon or peach until they get home and can take a bite, then peaches disappear.

We do not need a crystal ball to see what is going to happen. We've been watching it happen for more than a decade. We churn out shitty code that is poorly cobbled together, begging for the mercy of death. Yet, despite everyone having computers, phones, and using apps and software, how many can tell what is good and bad without careful inspection?

The bitter truth is that lemons are quick and easy to produce while peaches take time. If we split up software development as you propose, then it won't just be the AI coders who are eating lemons. Frankly, it seems that everything is sour these days. Even the most tech illiterate people I know are frustrated at the sour taste. There's demand for peaches, but it's a hard hole to dig ourselves out of. Even harder when building more shovel factories.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#202

Post by clarinificator »

eric-burel wrote: post #133
lsy wrote: post #63

I think two things can be true simultaneously: 1. LLMs are a new technology and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with that. It's difficult to imagine a future where they don't continue to exist in some form, with all the timesaving benefits and social issues that come with them. 2. Almost three years in, companies investing in LLMs have not yet discovered a business model that justifies the massive expen…

Developers haven't even started extracting the value of LLMs with agent architectures yet. Using an LLM UI like open ai is like we just figured fire and you use it to warm you hands (still impressive when you think about it, but not worth the burns), while LLM development is about building car engines (here is you return on investment).

Every booster argument is like this one. $trite_analogy triumphant smile

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#203

Post by hammyhavoc »

ascorbic wrote: post #196
rafaelmn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you claimed that AI was inevitable in the 80s and invested, or claimed people would be inevitably moving to VR 10 years ago - you would be shit out of luck. Zuck is still burning billions on it with nothing to show for it and a bad outlook. Even Apple tried it and hilariously missed the demand estimate. The only potential bailout for this tech is AR, but thats still years away from consumer market and widespread a…

The people claiming that AI in the 80s or VR or robotaxis or self-driving cars in the 2010s were inevitable weren't doing it on the basis of the tech available at that point, but on the assumed future developments. Just a little more work and they'd be useful, we promise. You just need to believe hard enough. With the smartphone in 2009, the web in the late 90s or LLMs now, there's no element of "trust me, bro" neede…

LLM inevitablists definitely assume future developments will improve their current state.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#204

Post by cmdli »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #149
mg wrote: post #70

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipp…

Any code thats easy to define and tedious I just get AI's to do it now, and its awesome. Saves me so much work, though you have to read the code, it still puts in odd stuff sometimes.

How much of the code you are writing is tedious? If its a significant amount, the framework you are using could use some improvement.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#205

Post by theodric »

baxuz wrote: post #151
mg wrote: post #70

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipp…

The thing is that the data from actual research doesn't support your anecdotal proof of quality: - https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o... - https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/29/ai_agents_fail_a_lot/ But more importantly, it makes you stupid: - https://www.404media.co/microsoft-study-finds-ai-makes-human... - https://archive.is/M3lCG And it's an unsustainable bubble and wishful thinking, muc…

> Who is the product (LLM coding tools) actually for, and what is its purpose?

Ideally: it's for people who aren't devs, don't want to be devs, can't afford to pay devs to build their hobby projects for them, and just want to have small tools to unblock or do cool stuff. It's pretty incredible what a no-coder can knock off in an evening just by yelling at Cursor. It's a 3D printer for code.

But realistically, we know that the actual answer is: the people who already destroy companies for their own short-term benefit and regard all tech workers as fungible resources will have no problem undermining the feasibility of hiring good senior devs in 2050 in exchange for saving a ton of money now by paying non-devs non-dev money to replace juniors, leaning HARD on the remaining meds/seniors to clean up the resulting mess, and then pulling the ripcord on their golden parachute and fucking off to some yacht or island or their next C-suite grift before the negative consequences hit, all the while touting all the money they saved "automating" the development process at their last corp. And then private equity buys it up, "makes it efficient" to death, and feeds its remaining viable organs to another company in their portfolio.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#206

Post by clarinificator »

lblume wrote: post #110
fendy3002 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs need significant optimization or we get significant improvement on computing power while keeping the energy cost the same. It's similar with smartphone, when at the start it's not feasible because of computing power, and now we have one that can rival 2000s notebooks. LLMs is too trivial to be expensive EDIT: I presented the statement wrongly. What I mean is the use case for LLM are trivial things, it shouldn't…

Imagine telling a person from five years ago that the programs that would basically solve NLP, perform better than experts at many tasks and are hard not to anthropomorphize accidentally are actually "trivial". Good luck with that.

Yeah it solved NLP about 50% of the time, and also mangles data badly and in often hard-to-detect ways.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#207

Post by ascorbic »

NBJack wrote: post #5
delichon wrote: post #2

If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is w…

Ironically, this is exactly the technique for arguing that the blog mentions. Remember the revolutionary, seemingly inevitable tech that was poised to rewrite how humans thought about transportation? The incredible amounts of hype, the secretive meetings disclosing the device, etc.? That turned out to be the self-balancing scooter known as a Segway?

The Segway hype was before anyone knew what it was. As soon as people saw the Segway it was obvious it was BS.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#208

Post by mnsc »

"AI" is good right now and feels inevitable. But the current models are trained on the extinct "pure" information state we had pre llm:s. Going forward we will have to start taking into account the current level of "ai slop" being added to the the information space. So I will have to trust my "detect ai generated information" LLM to correctly classify my main three llms responses as "hallucinating", "second level hallucinating", "fact based", "trustworthy aggregate" or "injection attack attempt". Probably should add another llm to check that response as well. Printed as a check list so that I can manually check it myself.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#209

Post by com2kid »

scubbo wrote: post #83
mg wrote: post #70

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipp…

> Hours of time saved Come back in a week and update us on how long you've spent debugging all the ways that the code was broken that you didn't notice in those 15 minutes. Usually I don't nitpick spelling, but "mimnutes" and "stylisitic" are somewhat ironic here - small correct-looking errors get glossed over by human quality-checkers, but can lead to genuine issues when parsed as code. A key difference between your…

> Come back in a week and update us on how long you've spent debugging all the ways that the code was broken that you didn't notice in those 15 minutes.

Same as if I let a junior engineer merge code to main w/o unit tests.

Complete garbage, of course.

Oh wait, my code is also trash w/o good unit tests, because I am only human.

Instead I'll write out a spec, define behaviors and edge cases, and ask the junior engineer to think about them first. Break implementation down into a plan, and I'll code review each task as it is completed.

Now all of a sudden, the code is good, independent of who/what wrote it!

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#210

Post by bradly »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #186
bradly wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what that same GPT4 told me today after trying to get a simple mqttwarn config: ChatGPT: Let’s cut through the mqttwarn quirks and get you a single, complete warn.ini that I’ve actually tested with mqttwarn 0.32 Me: that "I’ve actually tested with mqttwarn 0.32:" How did you perform this test? ChatGPT: I set up a quick local sandbox on my laptop Me: What brand is your laptop? What store did you buy it at? Cha…

So did it actually give you a config file? And did it work or fail? If it didn't give you a config file I really don't understand why your followup wasn't getting it to spit one out, and instead you decided to ask it questions about an obviously fake laptop.

Yes, it did give a file and a bunch of steps but saddly the file did not work. It had whitespace/formatting issues and then general misconfiguration issues once I resolved the formatting.
Post reply on HN