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

The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

theocharis.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 330 posts

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#61

Post by mark_and_sweep »

> a genuinely good tool that enriches your thinking

A smartphone is also a genuinely good all-around tool. Even social media is a genuinely good tool for connecting people.

Yet, I feel like we've been overly optimistic about the impact of said tools on us and our societies in the past two decades.

Smartphones are so good, in fact, in some societies, half of us are addicted to them. Billions of people world-wide.

I ask myself: Will LLMs enrich my thinking in the long run, or will they ruin it?

And what about most people? Will half of us outsource most of our thinking in a decade from now?

Given the speed and global scale that we're running these experiments with, it's fair, I think, to be a bit sceptical of the conclusion that, in the long run, LLMs will enrich our thinking.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#62

Post by qsort »

Diogenesian wrote: post #47
msdz wrote: post #2

> LLM’s amplify what you already have: opinions, structure, frameworks. So far, so agreeable, but… > If you have thoughts, they come out sharper and faster. I can’t help but wonder whether constant use of “agent” harnesses will lead to an atrophy of the software engineering (or really any field) muscles. Actual muscles need exercise to stay in shape (let alone grow), so does the brain. Can we really be sure that thou…

I will just point out the benefit is not as obvious as you think. Developers have consistently overestimated LLM productivity gains, which still seems true for agentic AI: https://metr.org/blog/2026-05-11-ai-usage-survey/ It is particularly striking how similar the results are to LLMs before agents. Along with the total absence of long-term data, I think the benefit can be (weakly) denied. Maybe not in the employmemt…

> I will just point out the benefit is not as obvious as you think. Developers have consistently overestimated LLM

I think there are two different claims here:

- developers overestimate productivity gains, which is a solid finding in many of these studies. Skepticism of extremely large productivity gains is warranted and I flatly disbelieve "10x uplift" claims.

- LLMs give no productivity uplift at all, which is much harder to defend. A repeat of the famous METR RCT study did find evidence of improved productivity, and this seems to align with the experience of many experts I trust.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#63

Post by jmuguy »

adamas wrote: post #36

Do I understand that spend report right ? 10k USD in a month for AI tokens ? After talking about the environmental cost of AI ?

Yeah this is where I stopped. I use AI every day for work but 10k spend to me is a signal that OP is doing something extremely stupid with their AI use.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#64

Post by adamas »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #50

You're all in denial when you criticize LLMs. It's not necessarily that the criticism isn't true. It's more how self assured the criticism is. That's the biggest problem because AI is a moving target. It is getting better, and it is getting better fast. A lot of the criticism can become outdated in a year or six months. The change is happening in front of your very eyes and yet you can always reliably come on HN and…

> AI code must always be reviewed

Yeah, of course AI code must always be reviewed. All code must be reviewed.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #45
msdz wrote: post #2

> LLM’s amplify what you already have: opinions, structure, frameworks. So far, so agreeable, but… > If you have thoughts, they come out sharper and faster. I can’t help but wonder whether constant use of “agent” harnesses will lead to an atrophy of the software engineering (or really any field) muscles. Actual muscles need exercise to stay in shape (let alone grow), so does the brain. Can we really be sure that thou…

Putting all this in 2nd paragraph so that you can skip it if you think 'coding' is your primary portion of your job. I suppose I am in a mildly privileged position in a sense that my work is a weird intersection of tech, finance, and comprehension. In other words, I don't code much, but I absolutely benefit from now being able to play with various projects I would otherwise have no business touching without a bigger…

Why would you be very careful with a one-off script? The only point is the output.

On the other hand, if you actually care about the output, how do you know it's right, unless you review the script? I mean, if all you care about is plausible-looking output, you could have the LLM produce that, and skip the Python script entirely...

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#66

Post by lnfromx »

simianwords wrote: post #3

At what point would one say that the LLM critics were wrong in their load-bearing (yes I used it) claims?

If the critique itself turns out to be wrong. Using LLMs does not equal endorsement nor does it make valid points to critizise disappear. "using LLMs" has no clear definition and can still be in line with the critique.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#67

Post by Izkata »

TonyAlicea10 wrote: post #43
prettyblocks wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can’t help but wonder whether constant use of “agent” harnesses will lead to an atrophy of the software engineering (or really any field) muscles. It will, but I'm not sure the impact of this will be all too great. We suffer from not knowing how to use an abacus because we have a calculator, and people who feel a pull to keep their low-level chops up will do so anyway.

I don't think this is equivalent. The calculator won't occasionally hallucinate a wrong answer. LLMs are a far leakier abstraction which means skill atrophy impacts evaluation and verification ability.

They're not an abstraction at all until we're committing prompts instead of code.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#68

Post by elicash »

adamas wrote: post #36

Do I understand that spend report right ? 10k USD in a month for AI tokens ? After talking about the environmental cost of AI ?

Yes, this dissonance is the point of the post. The first two sentences use the word, and then it's repeated throughout.

It's nice to see a person who actually acknowledges tradeoff.

For the curious, this seems to be his company: https://www.umh.app

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#69

Post by RIMR »

The LLM critics are right, and that's why I try not to use AI in the ways critics point out are bad.

I use AI to code tools for myself, but I don't pretend anything I make is production quality. Duct tape engineering has always been a bit sloppy, and AI just made it faster.

I use AI to troubleshoot issues and plan out strategies, but I basically consider the AI draft of anything to be "draft 0", and use it as a framework for writing my own works for a real first draft of anything I write that will be read by other people. Sometimes the AI spits out a perfect paragraph that I might copy, but I don't ever blindly trust it or let it speak for me. I also double-check everything it says that I don't have existing knowledge of, rather than trust it to be right.

AI images, video, and music are all entertaining, but I only generate these things as a form of self-entertainment and maybe online meming. I could never in good conscience pass these creations off as my own, or publish them online on a personal or business website when something non-synthetic would suffice.

And I am never personally confiding in an LLM like it were a person. I have had it help me brainstorm options for office politics stuff, but I'm not about to ask it for relationship advice or to be my friend.

I do love that it accelerates the tedious stuff, and helps me learn new things pretty quickly if used right. It has definite utility. But I am always really distrustful of it. Sometimes at work we are asked to share how we use AI, and I have actually refused before, on the grounds that I may have found a useful way to use the AI, but I am worried that others will use my same method badly (e.g., not verifying eveything the AI says first), and I would rather not share.

It's like I have a finicky gun. I might be comfortable shooting it since I know its quirks and how to keep it from accidentally discharging, but I'm not loaning it out to anyone I wouldn't want to accidentally shoot themselves with it.

Re: The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway

#70

Post by mekdoonggi »

mark_and_sweep wrote: post #61

> a genuinely good tool that enriches your thinking A smartphone is also a genuinely good all-around tool. Even social media is a genuinely good tool for connecting people. Yet, I feel like we've been overly optimistic about the impact of said tools on us and our societies in the past two decades. Smartphones are so good, in fact, in some societies, half of us are addicted to them. Billions of people world-wide. I as…

I agree with this. Tools are good, betting the farm on a single tool is bad.

Example, cars are good. Betting the farm on cars to the detriment of bikes, buses, and trains is clearly bad. The tool of an llm is clearly handy. Betting trillions of dollars and linking the future of the nation and globe to this tool is clearly bad.

Post reply on HN