[nottorp]

Some engineers don't dismiss LLMs.

They dismiss the religion like hype machine.

You want to market to engineers, stick to provable statements. And address some of their concerns. With something other than "AI is evolving constantly, all your problems will be solved in 6 months, just keep paying us."

Oh by the way, what is the OP trying to sell with these FOMO tactics? Yet another ChatGPT frontend?

[squidbeak]

Perhaps in that case the critics should bend their ire on the marketing departments, rather than trashing the tech?

Really though, the potential in this tech is unknown at this point. The measures we have suggest there's no slowdown in progress, and it isn't unreasonable for any enthusiast or policy maker to speculate about where it could go, or how we might need to adjust our societies around it.

[nottorp]

> it isn't unreasonable for any enthusiast or policy maker to speculate about where it could go

What is posted to HN daily is beyond speculation. I suppose a psychologist has a term for what it is, I don't.

Edit: well, guess what? I asked an "AI":

Psychological Drivers of AI Hype:

  Term                   | Driver                | Resulting Behavior

  -----------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------

  ELIZA Effect           | Symbolic projection   | Treating a script like a person.

  Automation Bias        | Cognitive offloading  | Trusting AI over your own eyes.

  Techno-Optimism        | Confirmation bias     | Ignoring risks for "progress."

  Interface Familiarity  | Fluency heuristic     | Friendly UI = "Smart" system.

By the way, the text formatting is done by the "AI" as well. Asked it to make the table look like a table on HN specifically.

[cons0le]

I think we should label devs overreliant on AI as "Engineers who dismiss themselves"

[janice1999]

Personally I prefer "Artificially Intelligent engineers" or "Engineers who outsource intelligence".

[falcor84]

I'll take that, but don't see how it's so different from the intent I've always had of "automating myself out of the job". When I want to do "engineering", I can always spin up Factorio or Turing Complete. But for the rest of the time, I care about the result rather than the process. For example, before starting to implement a tool, I'll always first search online for whether there is already a good tool that would address my need, and if so, I'll generally utilize that.

[nottorp]

The nondeterminism is what makes LLMs different.

You download a tool written by a human, you can reasonably expect that it does what the author claims it does. And more, you can reasonably expect that if it fails it will fail in the same way in the same conditions.

[DonHopkins]

Cracktorio! ;) I also love Dyson Sphere Program.

I wrote some Turing Machine programs back in my Philosophy of Computer Science class during the 80's, but since then my Turing Machine programming skills have atrophied, and I let LLMs write them for me now.

[hulitu]

> You want to market to engineers, stick to provable statements.

And that's where the "AI" is lacking.

"AI can write a testcase". Can it write a _correct_ test case (i.e. one that i only have to review, like i review my colleague work) ?

"AI can write requirements". Now, that i'm still waiting to see.

[nottorp]

> Can it write a _correct_ test case

And is the test case useful for something? On non textbook code?

[mholm]

Is it possible you're not the target audience if you are aware that LLMs are impressive and useful? Regardless of the inane hype and bubble around them.