401–410 of 762 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d encourage you to try the 1M context window on Gemini 2.5 Pro. It’s pretty remarkable. I paste in the entire codebase for my small ETL project (100k tokens) and it’s pretty good. Not perfect, still a long ways to go, but a sign of the times to come.
[flagged]
This matches my experience. I actually think a fair amount of value from LLM assistants to me is having a reasonably intelligent rubber duck to talk to. Now the duck can occasionally disagree and sometimes even refine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging I think the big question everyone wants to skip right to and past this conversation is, will this continue to be true 2 years from now? I don’t kno…
LLMs aren't my rubber duck, they're my wrong answer. You know that saying that the best way to get an answer online is to post a wrong answer? That's what LLMs do for me. I ask the LLM to do something simple but tedious, and then it does it spectacularly wrong, then I get pissed off enough that I have the rage-induced energy to do it myself.
God help us if companies start relying on LLMs for life-or-death stuff like insurance claim decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs aren't my rubber duck, they're my wrong answer. You know that saying that the best way to get an answer online is to post a wrong answer? That's what LLMs do for me. I ask the LLM to do something simple but tedious, and then it does it spectacularly wrong, then I get pissed off enough that I have the rage-induced energy to do it myself.
LLMs follow instructions. Garbage in = garbage out generally. When attention is managed and a problem is well defined and necessary materials are available to it, they can perform rather well. On the other hand, I find a lot of the loosely-goosey vibe coding approach to be useless and gives a lot of false impressions about how useful LLMs can be, both too positive and too negative.
All the world's smartest minds are racing towards replacing themselves. As programmers, we should take note and see where the wind is blowing. At least don't discard the possibility and rather be prepared for the future. Not to sound like a tin-foil hat but odds of achieving something like this increase by the day. In the long term (post AGI), the only safe white-collar jobs would be those built on data which is not…
> All the world's smartest minds are racing towards replacing themselves Isnt every little script, every little automation us programmers do in the same spirit? "I dont like doing this, so I'm going to automate it, so that I can focus on other work". Sure, we're racing towards replacing ourselves, but there would be (and will be) other more interesting work for us to do when we're free to do that. Perhaps, all of us…
Unless you have a mortgage.. or rent.. or need to eat
The thing everyone forgets when talking about LLMs replacing coders is that there is much more to software engineering than writing code, in fact that's probably one of the smaller aspects of the job. One major aspect of software engineering is social, requirements analysis and figuring out what the customer actually wants, they often don't know. If a human engineer struggles to figure out what a customer wants and a…
The thing is, it is replacing _coders_ in a way. There are millions of people who do (or did) the work that LLMs excel at. Coders who are given a ticket that says "Write this API taking this input and giving this output" who are so far down the chain they don't even get involved in things like requirements analysis, or even interact with customers. Software engineering, is a different thing, and I agree you're right…
I would argue it’s a good thing to replace the actual brainless activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we not? If they were so effective, their effectiveness would be apparent, inarguable, and those making use of it would advertise it as a demonstration of just that. Even if there were some sort of social stigma against it, AI has enough proponents to produce copious amounts of counterarguments through evidence all on their own. Instead, we have a tiny handful of one-off events that were laboriously tuned an…
I think the main reason might be that when the output is good the developer congratulates themselves, and when it's bad they make a post or comment about how bad AI is. Then the people who congratulate the AI for helping get yelled at by the other category.
We'd still have more than tortured, isolated, one-offs. We should have at least one well-known codebase maintained through the power of Silicon Valley's top silicon-based minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s the deal: if you won’t write your replacement, a competitor will do it and outprice your employer. Either way you’re out of a job. May be more prudent to adapt to the new tools and master them rather than be left behind? Do you want to be a jobless weaver, or an engineer building mechanical looms for a higher pay than the weaver got?
I want to be neither. I either want to continue being a software engineer who doesn't need a tricycle for the mind, or move to law or medicine; two professions that have successfully defended themselves against extreme versions of the kind of anxiety, obedience and self hate that is so prevalent among software engineers.
Happy to hate myself but earn OK money for OK hours.
It is quite heartening to see so many people care about "good code". I fear it will make no difference. The problem is that the software world got eaten up by the business world many years ago. I'm not sure at what point exactly, or if the writing was already on the wall when Bill Gates' wrote his open letter to hobbyists in 1976. The question is whether shareholders and managers will accept less good code. I don't s…
Could most software be more awesome? Yes. Objectively, yes. Is most software garbage? Perhaps by raw volume of software titles, but are most popular applications I’ve actually used garbage? Nope. Do I loathe the whole subscription thing? Yes. Absolutely. Yet, I also get it. People expect software to get updated, and updates have costs.
So, the pertinent question here is, will AI systems be worse than humans? For now, yeah. Forever? Nope. The rate of improvement is crazy. Two years ago, LLMs I ran locally couldn’t do much of anything. Now? Generally acceptable junior dev stuff comes out of models I run on my Mac Studio. I have to fiddle with the prompts a bit, and it’s probably faster to just take a walk and think it over than spend an hour trying different prompts… but I’m a nerd and I like fiddling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the response to most new technologies; folks simply don't want to accept the future before the ramifications truly hit. If technology folk cannot see the INCREDIBLE LEAP FORWARD made by LLMs since ChatGPT came on the market, they're not seeing the forest through the trees because their heads are buried in the sand. LLMs for coding are not even close to imperfect, yet, but the saturation curves are not flatten…
Lawyers don't even use version control software a lot of the time. They burn hundreds of paralegal hours reconciling revisions, a task that could be made 100x faster and easier with Git. There's no guarantee a technology will take off, even if it's really, really good. Because we don't decide if that tech takes off - the lawyers do. And they might not care, or they might decide billing more hours is better, actually.
History majors everywhere are weeping.