[rvz]

> I understand that the LLM models are advancing quickly and aren't easily explainable or transparent. The models feel like magic at times.

This is exactly why LLMs aren't useful or trustworthy for anything serious other than the niche of summarization of existing text. Even with that, you have to keep checking that it isn't hallucinating or bullshitting.

> These folks should take the time to understand how an LLM works before taking this action.

Anyone who knows about deep neural networks already knows that fundamentally they are black-boxes and are extremely poor at explainability and reasoning. This also applies to LLMs and it is not 'FUD'.

[gremlinsinc]

If you start with unit tests, you can have a looping ai just keep iterating code into a python file for example until it figures out how to pass the test, then all you need to do is write tests and the rest of the code writes itself.

[Veen]

They're useful for many things, provided the user is aware of their limitations. That's true of any tool or information source.

[boringuser2]

GPT-4 is basically magic when it comes to code. Have you used it?