|
Top-level
 @utterfiction @carbontwelve @david_chisnall He has a few examples where he felt something in the output didn't look right, or ran it and found bugs, and had the LLM try again. Most of his examples are relatively simple things of the form "I didn't want to spend time reading API docs for this quick task", though. I don't find that sort of thing a bottleneck in what I do - and I quite enjoy reading docs, and building a mental model of a tool I can then use to know what its... 3 comments
@kitten_tech @carbontwelve @david_chisnall Yeah. A lot of my professional time is spent extending logic, adding new features that follow an existing pattern, refactoring when re-usable abstractions are discovered… so far, they’re just not very good at that. And I don’t think pure LLMs ever will be - limited token windows and no genuine symbolic representation of knowledge.  @utterfiction @carbontwelve @david_chisnall If you can suddenly create small throwaway applications far more quickly than before, applications that might be too boring or bothersome to create otherwise, that might allow new ways of working altogether. |
Gregory's Server
@utterfiction @carbontwelve @david_chisnall ... limitations and capabilities are.
The bits of programming that eat my time, which I'd love a tool to help with, are usually understanding a bug in an undocumented and under commented ball of hundreds of kloc of code, too big for an LLM's context window, and where going and quizzing the people who wrote bits of it is essential to success.
The bits Simon gets LLMs to do look like the tasks I do to cheer myself up after that :-)