|
|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
847 days ago
|
|
|
> If you honestly think that statistics based AI can replace software engineers, then you either have no software engineering experience, don’t understand how AI works under the hood, or haven’t worked anywhere that does anything more than CRUD api development. I don't understand how brains work under the hood (does anyone?), but zoom into the brain and you get chemistry, zoom into the chemistry and you get quantum mechanics, and that quantum mechanics is statistical in nature. I don't know if that truth matters or not, because I don't know which layer of abstraction is the most relevant one for our intelligence. And without knowing that, I don't know if these models we have now can or can't be scaled up to do what we do: if what we are really does depend on some microtubule quantum computation, then no, no classical computer can ever be like us (though it is, still, statistics); on the other hand, if everything we are comes from the strengths of synaptic connections and internal bias of our neurons, then any sufficiently complex model can absolutely do all that we can do, and much faster too. |
|
|
Come on, really? Are you comparing using your brain to using an LLM.
I didn’t even need to read the rest to know it was all nonsense.
LLMs aren’t magic. If you understand how they work, then you can understand the limitations of the approach. You seem to not.