[constantcrying]

>After working with agent-LLMs for some years now, I can confirm that they are completely useless for real programming.

>They never helped me solve complex problems with low-level libraries. They can not find nontrivial bugs. They don't get the logic of interwoven layers of abstractions.

>LLMs pretend to do this with big confidence and fail miserably.

This is true for most developers as well. The mean software developer, especially if you outsource, has failure modes worse than any LLM and round-trip time is not seconds but days.

The promise of LLMs is not that they solve the single most difficult tasks for you instantly, but that they do the easy stuff well enough that they replace offshore teams.

[shafyy]

> The promise of LLMs is not that they solve the single most difficult tasks for you instantly, but that they do the easy stuff well enough that they replace offshore teams.

But that's exactly the *promise* of LLMs by the hypepeople behind it.

[constantcrying]

>But that's exactly the promise of LLMs by the hypepeople behind it.

I do not know and do not care what the "hypepeople" say. I can tell you that, by pure logic alone, LLMs will be superior at simple and routine tasks sooner, which means they will compete with outsourced labor first.

LLMs need to be measured against their competition and their competition right now is outsourced labor. If an LLM can outperform an offshore team at a fraction of the cost, why would any company choose the offshore team? Especially when the LLM eliminates some of the biggest problems with offshore teams (communication barriers, round trip times).

If LLMs take any programmer jobs they will at the very beginning make those outsourced jobs obsolete, so the only relevant question is whether they have done that or are in the process of doing so. If they don't, then their impact will be minimal, if they do, then their impact will be massive. I think that this line of thinking is a far better benchmark then asking whether an LLM gets X or Y question wrong Z% of the time.

[kvemkon]

> If an LLM can outperform an offshore team at a fraction of the cost,..

And "a few moments later" happens the same as with those "cost effective" clouds.

[1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/IDC-Many-companies-want-partly-...

[2] https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/storm-clouds-ahead-... (original)

[andrekandre]

in the end, it all comes down to roi; if spending x dollars a month brings in an additional 5x revenue then its gonna be worth?

then again, i have some suspicion that alot of consumer-focused end products using llms in the backend (hello chatbots) expecting big returns for all those tokens spent may have some bad news coming... if the bubble starts popping i'm guessing it starts there...

[baq]

Outsourced devs wielding smart models are even cheaper than onshore and the models lift all boats wrt capability.

The bottleneck will soon be ideas for the things to build.

[shafyy]

> The bottleneck will soon be ideas for the things to build

No, it won't. The utility of LLMs is already growing asymptotically now...

[constantcrying]

>Outsourced devs wielding smart models are even cheaper than onshore

But they do not compete. They have totally different jobs.

[theshrike79]

I bet you trusted the Blockchain bros and were first in line to buy NFTs too. No?

Why would you trust the hype when you can verify this stuff yourself pretty easily.

[shafyy]

Obviously I am calling that promise bullshit...