| > If it were a battery break through it would take 10 years to turn it into a mass producible product I think it really did take approximately that much time for LLMs as well. first transformers paper came in 2017, almost 6 years back. text to code came almost 2-3 years before ChatGPT: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/video/intellicode-c... so even for software with the same underlying tech i.e transformers, it took almost 5 years to get to a breakthrough that can be scaled. I really like paulg's observation that "knowledge grows fractally". If you put the scope of chatgpt as all human jobs, it would still seem that its we have only scratched the surface, same in terms of throwing money at it, we are only throwing a very little fraction of the money > We need to value readable code over DRY, or Design patterns or what ever the next FOTM is. We need to laud people who make systems simpler, who reduces costs, who reshape and extend existing things rather than build new ones and pile more on top because it's "easy" or looks good on the resume. not just in tech, its always been hard to quantify and reward people based on non-functional attributes of a system's output. > I am part of the problem too, and I need to stop. I need to stop reaching for that next shiny bit of tech, next framework, next library. Because acting like a schizophrenic ADHD child finding candy hasn't really served anyone. referencing paulg again, I think this reach for next shiny bit of tech should still happen, but reaching fractally i.e in context of everything that you do, reaching for new tech should be a small part of it but still an essential component to grow |