|
|
|
|
|
|
by thunderbong
135 days ago
|
|
|
For me this was telling - > Coding agents are designed to be accommodating, it doesn’t push back against prompts since it neither has the authority nor the context to do so. It may ask for clarifications upon what was specified, but it won’t say “wait, have you considered doing X instead?” A human developer would, or at least, they’d raise a flag. An LLM produces plausible output and moves on. > This trait may be desirable as a virtual assistant, but it makes for a bad engineering teammate. The willingness to engage in productive conflict is part and parcel to good engineering: it helps broaden the search in the design space of ideas. Whenever non-technical people ask me about LLMs, I tell them this -
The goal of an LLM is not to give you correct answers. The goal of an LLM is to continue the conversation. |
|
|
It’s even simpler. The goal of an LLM is to generate the next token.
That’s reductive but worth considering. An LLM doesn’t have inherent goals and you aren’t privy to how it was post-trained or what on, so you can’t assume it’ll behave in any particular way.