> Hackers have always tried out new technologies to see how they work – or break – so why would LLMs be any different?
Who says we haven't tried it out?
Who says we haven't tried it out?
FTA.
I know tons of people where "tried it out" means they've seen Google's abysmal search summary feature, or merely seen the memes and read news articles about how it's wrong sometimes, and haven't explored any further.
They seem just as enthusiastic as many of the pro AI voices here on HN, while the quality of their work declines. It makes me extremely skeptical of anyone who is enthusiastic about AI. It seems to me like it's a delusion machine
We'll need to be even more intentional about when to use LLMs than we should arguably already be about any type of automation.
I was describing anecdotally what I have witnessed. Devs that I used to have a reasonably high opinion of struggling to explain or understand the PRs they are making
> Does using an LLM cause one to suddenly forget everything?
I think we can probably agree that when you stop using skills, those skills will atrophy to some extent
Can we also agree that using LLMs to generate code is different from the skill of writing code?
If so, it stands to reason that the more people rely on LLMs to generate things for them, the more their skills of creating those things by hand will atrophy
I don't think it should be very controversial to think that LLMs are making people worse at things
It is also entirely possible that people are becoming better (or faster, anyways. Extremely debatable if faster = better imo) at building software using LLMs while also becoming worse at actually writing code
I was surprised how hard many here fell for the NFT thing, too.
Various people have been wrong on various predictions in the past, and it seems to me that any implied strong overlap is anecdotal at best and wishful (why?) thinking at worst.
The only really embarrassing behavior is never updating your priors when your predictions are wrong. Also, if you're always right about all your prognoses, you should probably also not be in the HN comments but on a prediction market, on-chain or traditional :)
Maybe so, but would it be possible to not dismiss it elsewhere? I just don't see the causal relation between AI and crypto, other than that both might be completely overhyped, world-changing, or boringly correctly estimated in their respective impact.
Just because
- crypto was massively hyped and then crashed (although it's more than recovered),
- many grifters chase hypes, and
- there's undeniably an AI hype going on at the moment
doesn't necessarily imply that AI is full of grifters or confirms any adjacent theories (as in, could be true, could be false, but the argument does not hold).
Did they? I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see some evidence, because NFTs were always obvious nonsense. I'm sure there were some grifters posting here, and others playing devil's advocate or refuting anti-NFT arguments that somehow went too far, but I'd be genuinely surprised if the general sentiment was not overwhelmingly negative/dismissive.