[decasia]

We aren't expecting LLMs to come up with incredibly creative software designs right now, we are expecting them to execute conventional best practices based on common patterns. So it makes sense to me that it would not excel at the task that it was given here.

The whole thing seems like a pretty good example of collaboration between human and LLM tools.

[writeslowly]

I haven't actually had that much luck with having them output a boring API boilerplate in large Java projects. Like "I need to create a new BarOperation that has to go in a different set of classes and files and API prefixes than all the FooOperations and I don't feel like copy pasting all the yaml and Java classes" but the AI has problems following this. Maybe they work better in small projects.

I actually like LLMs better for creative thinking because they work like a very powerful search engine that can combine unrelated results and pull in adjacent material I would never personally think of.

[coffeeismydrug]

> Like "I need to create a new BarOperation that has to go in a different set of classes and files and API prefixes than all the FooOperations and I don't feel like copy pasting all the yaml and Java classes" but the AI has problems following this.

To be fair, I also have problems following this.

[ehutch79]

Uh, no. I've seen the twitter posts saying llms will replace me. I've watched the youtube videos saying llms will code whole apps on one prompt, but are light on details or only show the most basic todo app from every tutorial.

We're being told that llms are now reasoning, which implies they can make logical leaps and employ creativity to solve problems.

The hype cycle is real and setting expectations that get higher with the less you know about how they work.

[prophesi]

> The hype cycle is real and setting expectations that get higher with _the less you know about how they work_.

I imagine on HN, the expectations we're talking about are from fellow software developers who at least have a general idea on how LLM's work and their limitations.

[bluefirebrand]

Right below this is a comment

> you will almost certainly be replaced by an llm in the next few years

So... Maybe not. I agree that Hacker News does have a generally higher quality of contributors than many places on the internet, but it absolutely is not a universal for HNers. There are still quite a few posters here that have really bought into the hype for whatever reason

[zamalek]

> hype for whatever reason

"I need others to buy into LLMs in order for my buy-in to make sense," i.e. network effects.[1]

> Most dot-com companies incurred net operating losses as they spent heavily on advertising and promotions to harness network effects to build market share or mind share as fast as possible, using the mottos "get big fast" and "get large or get lost". These companies offered their services or products for free or at a discount with the expectation that they could build enough brand awareness to charge profitable rates for their services in the future.

You don't have to go very far up in terms of higher order thinking to understand what's going on here. For example, think about Satya's motivations for disclosing Microsoft writing 30% of their code using LLMs. If this really was the case, wouldn't Microsoft prefer to keep this competitive advantage secret? No: Microsoft and all the LLM players need to drive hype, and thus mind share, in the hope that they become profitable at some point.

If "please" and "thank you" are incurring huge costs[2], how much is that LLM subscription actually going to cost consumers when the angel investors come knocking, and are consumers going to be willing to pay that?

I think a more valuable skill might be learning how to make do with local LLMs because who knows how many of these competitors will still be around in a few years.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Spending_tenden... [2]: https://futurism.com/altman-please-thanks-chatgpt

[danielbln]

I wish we'd measure things less against how hyped they are. Either they are useful, or they are not. LLMs are clearly useful (to which extent and with what caveats is up to lively debate).

[bgwalter]

After the use-after-free hype article I tried CoPilot and it outright refused to find vulnerabilities.

Whenever I try some claim, it does not work. Yes, I know, o3 != CoPilot but I don't have $120 and 100 prompts to spend on making a point.

[ldjkfkdsjnv]

you will almost certainly be replaced by an llm in the next few years

[einpoklum]

You mean, as a HackerNews commenter? Well, maybe...

In fact, maybe most of has have been replaced by LLMs already :-)