241–250 of 396 posts
Are these kinds of articles a new breed of rage bait? They keep ending up on the front page with thriving comment sections, but in terms of content they're pretty low in nutritional value. So I'm guessing they just rise because they spark a debate?
Vibe coders are the new eternal september
After working with the latest models I think these "it's just another tool" or "another layer of abstraction" or "I'm just building at a different level" kind of arguments are wishful thinking. You're not going to be a designer writing blueprints for a series of workers to execute on, you're barely going to be a product manager translating business requirements into a technical specification before AI closes that gap…
> translating business requirements into a technical specification a.k.a. Being a programmer. > The irony is that I haven't seen AI have nearly as large of an impact anywhere else. What lol. Translation? Graphic design?
LLMs are new runtimes.
Are these kinds of articles a new breed of rage bait? They keep ending up on the front page with thriving comment sections, but in terms of content they're pretty low in nutritional value. So I'm guessing they just rise because they spark a debate?
You can get to the front page easily with dozen upvotes, like from your colleagues and friends. Sadly, that's possibly the only way to get your post some attention here now.
If we consider the prompts and LLM inputs to be the new source code, I want to see some assurance we get the same results every time. A traditional compiler will produce a program that behaves the same way, given the same source and options. Some even go out of their way to guarantee they produce the same binary output, which is a good thing for security and package management. That is why we don't need to store the…
Anyone doing benchmarks with managed runtimes, or serverless, knows it isn't quite true. Which is exactly one of the AOT only, no GC, crowds use as example why theirs is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone doing benchmarks with managed runtimes, or serverless, knows it isn't quite true. Which is exactly one of the AOT only, no GC, crowds use as example why theirs is better.
Even those are way more predictable than LLMs, given the same input. But more importantly, LLMs aren’t stateless across executions, which is a huge no-no.
They are, actually. A "fresh chat" with an LLM is non-deterministic but also stateless. Of course agentic workflows add memory, possibly RAG etc. but that memory is stored somewhere in plain English; you can just go and look at it. It may not be stateless but the state is fully known.
IDK how everyone else feel about it, but a non-deterministic “compiler” is the last thing I need.
I use them everywhere since the late 1990's, it is called managed runtime.
If we consider the prompts and LLM inputs to be the new source code, I want to see some assurance we get the same results every time. A traditional compiler will produce a program that behaves the same way, given the same source and options. Some even go out of their way to guarantee they produce the same binary output, which is a good thing for security and package management. That is why we don't need to store the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even those are way more predictable than LLMs, given the same input. But more importantly, LLMs aren’t stateless across executions, which is a huge no-no.
> But more importantly, LLMs aren’t stateless across executions, which is a huge no-no. They are, actually. A "fresh chat" with an LLM is non-deterministic but also stateless. Of course agentic workflows add memory, possibly RAG etc. but that memory is stored somewhere in plain English; you can just go and look at it. It may not be stateless but the state is fully known.
Perhaps more importantly, how would I quantify such “memory”? In other words, how could I verify that two memory inputs are the same, and how could I formalize the entirety of such inputs with the same outputs?