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

The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

lewiscampbell.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 295 posts

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#261

Post by LtWorf »

CapsAdmin wrote: post #79
rudedogg wrote: post #3

Hearing people on tech twitter say that LLMs always produce better code than they do by hand was pretty enlightening for me. LLMs can produce better code for languages and domains I’m not proficient in, at a much faster rate, but damn it’s rare I look at LLM output and don’t spot something I’d do measurably better. These things are average text generation machines. Yes you can improve the output quality by writing a…

I've been playing with vibe coding a lot lately and I think in most cases, the current SOTA LLM's don't produce code that I'd be satisfied with. I kind of feel like LLM's are really really good at hacking on a messy and fragile structure, because they can "keep track many things in their head" BUT An LLM can write a PNG decoder that works in whatever language I choose in one or a few shots. I can do that too, but it…

Crashes and slowness do matter to non-engineers.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#262

Post by dent9 »

Using LLM for programming work is a skill that takes practice and sometimes a little luck, just like Google searching for help with programming work.

It takes practice to figure out which things the LLM handles well and how best to present your problems to the LLM to get a good result.

It take luck that the specific things you're trying to get results for are things the LLM actually can handle well.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#263

Post by simonw »

bagacrap wrote: post #253
simonw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second.

Ok, then as a self described LLM evangelist, what motivates you to preach about LLM coding instead of just, y'know, doing it in private?

It would feel selfish for me not to help other people figure this stuff out.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#264

Post by jason_oster »

y0eswddl wrote: post #241
jason_oster wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick napkin math time! Steam reached a new peak of 42 million concurrent players today [1]. An average/mid-tier gaming PC uses 0.2 kWh per hour [2]. 42 million * 0.2 gives 8,400,000 kWh per hour, or 8,400 MWh per hour. By contrast, training GPT3 was estimated to have used 1,300 MWh of energy [3]. This does not account for training costs of newer models, nor inference costs. But we know inference costs are extraordin…

it's very weird to compare LLM training with a subset of gamers. Who lied to you and told you this was some kind of saving gotcha??

Come again?

I was skeptical of the LLM energy use claim. I went looking for numbers on energy usage in a domain that most people do not worry about or actively perceive as a net negative. Gaming is a very big industry ($197 billion in 2025 [1], compare to the $252 billion in private AI investment for 2025 [2]) and mostly runs on the same hardware as LLMs. So it's a good gut check.

I have not seen evidence that LLM energy usage is out of control. It appears to be much less than gaming. But please feel free to provide sources that demonstrate this lie.

The question is whether claims of AI energy use have sustenance, or if there are other industries that should be more concerning. People are either truly concerned about the cost of energy or it's a misplaced excuse to reinforce their negative opinions.

[1]: https://gameworldobserver.com/2025/12/23/the-gaming-industry...

[2]: https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/econo...

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#265

Post by jimbo1167 »

WolfeReader wrote: post #190
lijok wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when AI shows itself responsible for a new category of life-saving technique, like a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, then I'd have to reconsider. We’re way past that

Please, go into detail!

AlphaFold?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#266

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #259
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " ...these people probably will be left behind if they don't adopt it... " And there it is, the insecure evangelism.

I'm not sure you understand what insecure means. Do you think it means people aren't able to have an opinion about other people's skills, values, attitudes, and behaviors, and what those might ultimately result in?

The linked blog post explains what the post's author means by "insecure evangelism" and the parent poster followed the pattern described. Perhaps you should direct your comment to the author.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#267

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

tim333 wrote: post #225
j2kun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author claims it's not just that one evangelizes it, but that they become hostile when someone claims to not have the same experience in response. I don't recall Either Willison or Antirez scaring people by saying they will be left behind or that they are just afraid of becoming irrelevant. Instead they just talk about their positive experiences using it. Willison and Antirez seem to be fine to live and let live…

Antirez: >Skipping AI is not going to help you or your career. Think about it.

Who knows. Maybe all the AI people will have their skills atrophy and by the time the AI crash happens and none of the models can be run, they don't be employable any more. I'm happy to take that gamble if it saves my conscience.

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#268

Post by esoterae »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #160
ymyms wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut says that is not a property of LLM evangelists, but a property of current internet culture in general. People with strong, divisive, and engaging opinions seem to do well (by some definition of well) online.

It's weird how some people seem to treat using an LLM as part of their personality in a borderline cult like way. So someone saying they don't use it or don't find it useful triggers an anger response in them.

If a vegan LLM evangelist crossfitter comes up to you at party, which one do they talk about first?

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#269

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

rytill wrote: post #157
rudedogg wrote: post #3

Hearing people on tech twitter say that LLMs always produce better code than they do by hand was pretty enlightening for me. LLMs can produce better code for languages and domains I’m not proficient in, at a much faster rate, but damn it’s rare I look at LLM output and don’t spot something I’d do measurably better. These things are average text generation machines. Yes you can improve the output quality by writing a…

LLMs are not "average text generation machines" once they have context. LLMs learn a distribution. The moment you start the prompt with "You are an interactive CLI tool that helps users with software engineering at the level of a veteran expert" you have biased the LLM such that the tokens it produces are from a very non-average part of the distribution it's modeling.

Speak english

Re: The insecure evangelism of LLM maximalists

#270

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

bdangubic wrote: post #123
rudedogg wrote: post #3

Hearing people on tech twitter say that LLMs always produce better code than they do by hand was pretty enlightening for me. LLMs can produce better code for languages and domains I’m not proficient in, at a much faster rate, but damn it’s rare I look at LLM output and don’t spot something I’d do measurably better. These things are average text generation machines. Yes you can improve the output quality by writing a…

> if you’re seeing output that is consistently better than what you produce by hand, you’re probably just below average at programming even though this statement does not mathematically / statistically make sense - vast majority of SWEs are “below average.” therein lies the crux of this debate. I’ve been coding since the 90’s and: - LLM output is better than mine from the 90’s - LLM output is better than mine from ea…

That's not how averages work
Post reply on HN