|
|
|
|
|
by alisonatwork
678 days ago
|
|
The question is what does programming with an LLM get you over batteries-included frameworks with scaffolding like Rails or Django? If the problem only requires a generic infra solution put together by an LLM instead of a bespoke setup, why not look into low-code/no-code PaaS solutions to start with? Unless the LLM is going to provide you with some uniquely better results than existing tools designed to solve the same problems, it feels like a waste of resources to employ GPUs to do what templates/convention-over-configuration/autocomplete/etc already did. The point isn't that LLMs are useless, or that they aren't interesting technology in the abstract. The point is that aside from the very real entertainment value of being able to conjure artwork apparently out of thin air, when it comes to solving practical problems in the tech space, it's not clear that they are achieving significantly more - faster or cheaper - than existing tools and methods already did. You're right that it's probably too early to have data to prove their utility either way, but given how much time, money and energy many companies have already sunk into this - precisely without any evidence to prove it's worthwhile - it does come across rather more like a hype cycle at the moment. |
|
Three years ago an LLM would conversationally describe what the code would look like.
Two years ago it might crib common examples with minor typos.
Last year it could do something that isn't on StackOverflow at the level of an intern.
Earlier this year it could do something that isn't on StackOverflow at the level of a junior engineer.
Last week I had a conversation with Claude 3.5 that went something like this:
Elapsed time: a few hours. I didn't write any code. Keep in mind that unlike ChatGPT, Claude can't search the net for documentation - this was all "from memory".What will LLMs do next year?