[cafkafk]

I think a lot of the problem with the current discourse is how black-and-white it is. Either you're a luddite or "ai pilled".

In most cases, LLMs can get you 80-95% of the way, sometimes less, sometimes more. And heck, sometimes, it just gets you somewhere wrong.

But it seems everyone is arguing about whether LLMs can be perfect software engineers in isolation running in a closet, and using that to say that LLMs do not have a massive potential in other scenarios.

Sometimes, I like to imagine how much more productive most organizations could be from the things that the internet gave us, even to this day. Most companies never really do even a fraction of what is possible. That helps to ground my view of LLMs as well.

The fault dear Brutus isn't in our language models, but in ourselves.

[soperj]

It's funny, but the more I know about the true Luddites, the more I see their point of view.

" the original Luddites were primarily protesting against machinery used to "fraudulently and deceitfully" manufacture inferior goods, bypass labor standards, and strip skilled artisans of their livelihoods."

[bruce511]

Goods are usually (although not always) inferior when made by a machine. A hand-crafted solid wood table is still superior to something from Ikea.

Of course hand made tables are expensive. They service a sliver of the market. Ikea serves the rest of us who'd prefer not to eat off the floor.

Fundamentally, Luddites didn't like being replaced by a machine. They were skilled workers, who used to have very desirable skills. Most people didn't need their standard of quality (but customers had no choice.)

Their name is well known today because we never stopped replacing people with machines. Every industry as been "optimized" over and over again since the Luddite times.

AI is the first threat to the Artisans of today (ie programmers). We are just the most recent in a long history of Luddites.

In every change of this nature, some move on embracing the change, others do not. Some will find other jobs, possibly new jobs, others won't. Carriage drivers became Chauffeurs, some grooms became mechanics.

So sure, I'm a Luddite - I don't want to see my skills become cheap - but I'm also pragmatic. The change is here. I'd rather adapt than die.

[IdiotSavage]

> Goods are usually (although not always) inferior when made by a machine.

This is only true in the beginning, when machines are still primitive (e.g. first automatic looms). Nowadays machines mostly yield much better quality than any human can produce (e.g. automated welding, anything CNC controlled). Many things are only possible to build with machines (e.g. semiconductors).

> A hand-crafted solid wood table is still superior to something from Ikea.

This is by choice. Ikea chooses to produce the cheapest furniture possible, using cheap, crappy materials. Other manufacturers still produce high quality furniture, which is much more expensive.

[sgarland]

I know you said “mostly,” but wood is a huge outlier. It’s too heterogeneous to be accurately worked by machines at the level of accuracy that truly fine craftsmanship demands. To be clear, I’m talking about the level where a single chair can cost $20K, and represents hundreds of hours of labor. My FIL is at that level, and the stuff he makes is insane. The market for it is of course tiny, and I’d wager most of his buyers don’t even appreciate the attention to detail he puts into it, but yeah - there are no machines that I’m aware of that can feel perturbations at the sub-mm level and adjust the tool head on the fly, but he can.

This may simply be due to a lack of demand, but regardless, I assure you that machine-produced furniture can’t touch human-produced at the apex of fine craftsmanship.

[Voultapher]

Even something as "simple" as a kitchen knife - the same basic concept found in ancient roman everyday kitchens - can't be made to the same quality by a machine as per hand. CNC can't do the tolerances needed behind the apex. Even ignoring the story attached to a specific maker and going solely by cutting ability the really top end hand-made stuff noticeably outperforms everything mass-produced.

[IdiotSavage]

Are you talking about a chef's knife? If well done, I see no reason why it should be any worse than a high end knife made by a skilled human.

Have a look at this if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5lq2d-03T0

[morberg]

I watched the video, but don’t understand the point you are trying to make. It was only a How things are made collage from some factory.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

John Grimsmo's knifemaking business has a Kern which is perfectly capable of doing the tolerances needed behind the apex. That's a very expensive CNC machine, but it's capable of precision & accuracy well beyond what's possible to achieve by hand.

[Voultapher]

https://grimsmoknives.com/products/norseman-8359-8730526 look at those steps, calling this "precision & accuracy well beyond what's possible to achieve by hand" has to be a joke. Their other non CNC knives look much cleaner.

[kay_o]

Ikea does sell both ends of range; its has solid wood and particle boards.

[IdiotSavage]

They have "bottom of the barrel" and slightly better quality products. But the better products are nowhere near the (top) end of the range.

[ahartmetz]

No, really: They have pretty decent quality, too. Much better than slightly better than bottom the barrel anyway.

[t-3]

> Goods are usually (although not always) inferior when made by a machine. A hand-crafted solid wood table is still superior to something from Ikea.

False. Ikea is not representative of machine-made products, just their own brand of cheap and poorly-designed machine-made products which outsource assembly to the customer for novelty value. Machines are much more precise than humans and do tedious and complex work without cutting corners or getting tired. Buying handcrafted wooden furniture is a class and wealth flex, just like buying any other customized product. The superiority, if any, is entirely in the materials and bespoke design rather than the work - machines can do almost any of the work involved much better than humans.

[Earw0rm]

Seems we've fallen straight back into false dichotomy land.

In that there are a dozen shades of grey between "fully-automated, no humans assembly line" and "person using only hand tools maintained by hand". Tools _are_ machines, are technology, they've just been around so long we forgot that industrially forged steel needs an industrial steel forge.

Probably the best quality product you'll get is from a person who cares, sourcing materials they care about, working with it using their expertise and discernment, and using the most effective tools to get the job done - most, but not all of which will be power or machine tools.

But the point is that the human needs to direct the machines - sometimes that's just a thinking task, and sometimes it's a bunch more physically hands-on.

[tavavex]

I know it's not the point of the conversation, but this is very overly harsh to Ikea. Their products are cheap (or, at least, they focus on cheap products), but why poorly-designed? I never had any of their furniture fail on me, and the concessions they make to get the lower price are really not deal-breakers in 99% of cases. It's really not bad at all. Also, selling disassembled furniture saves them a fortune on shipping, they don't do it because they think it's funny or quirky or something.

[Ekaros]

I wonder what percentage of wooden furniture is truly hand-crafted in whole chain. That is felled with hand-made tools by hand. Transportation maybe can be ignored. Then hand sawed without power tools. All other tools after that being hand made from ground up. Like saws, planes, sand paper, glues(most likely at least some parts are glued together wood)... Most likely vanishingly small number.

[fingerlocks]

Anything “live edge” is often done by hand. Also true for end grain cutting boards, end grain anything really, and any furniture made with mostly burl and heartwood. Coffee tables are common.

The reason is that knotted wood is dangerously unwieldy to machine without a lot of additional preparation. End grain work is just hard to automate. Lots of gluing into a shape that can’t be planed easily and prone to exploding if one is careless.

If you want to peek in to the weird long tail, the guys over at Sawmill Creek love to one-up each other in a never ending contest to be the king of traditional wood working.

[zdragnar]

Head out to Amish country, there's plenty to be found if you look for it. With that said, depending on the community, they may use tools powered by belt driven by or air compressed by non-electrical means. Each community decides where to draw the line of acceptable modern tech, so you'd need to ask how they build their products.

[torben-friis]

>Of course hand made tables are expensive. They service a sliver of the market. Ikea serves the rest of us who'd prefer not to eat off the floor.

And yet my working class grandparents didn't eat off the floor, they had great quality tables.

Mine is made of disguised cardboard.

This is a big part of the problem, there is zero trust that any potential improvement in cost or access will reach consumers. Companies don't even bother telling us it will.

We will just be slowly moved into accepting a degradation as the new normal.

[scrollaway]

The cost improvements reached you, you just don't see them in the table quality.

You see them in the fact that every single home you'll visit to buy or rent has a fully equipped kitchen including a fridge, oven, likely a microwave, dishwasher and even a washing machine (which alone has a huge economic impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gvsz_vc7B0)

You see it in the fact that your home is safer from fires than it ever has been. That hot water is a cheap passive thing you don't even think about, rather than something you have to plan for. That a TV is a nice add-on to it all, rather than a huge deal to get.

Your grandparents' table was more expensive because they had less things, and the massive wood table that they saved months for was what was kept and stood the test of time for you to see today. Because let's not forget, this is also what furnishing 100 years ago can look like:

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/furnishing-for-h...

[BoingBoomTschak]

The real problem is that today, you rarely can pay more to get better. If you pay 3x more for your appliances (TV, dishwasher, oven, etc...) you don't get something 3x more reliable/better engineered.

Because that requires manufacturers ready to give up stealth corner cutting as the cornerstone of their earnings in favour of the hard and long task of developing an image of reliability.

------

Three cases I know enough about: cars, loudspeakers and computer monitors.

You can still buy some Mazda/Toyota models to really get more thoughtful engineering and QC for your money, but the Germans with a similar image of quality (Mercedes, BMW) have partially or fully shed the underlying quality.

Genelec remains the only (non-PA) loudspeaker manufacturer you can sincerely trust to take reliability, performance and transparency seriously. There was also Klein + Hummel (K+H) but since being bought by Sennheiser and integrated with Neumann, things have been going downhill... to the point where some curious people found CapXon caps (bottom of the barrel) in their KH80s.

Computer monitors? Since Panasonic (Eizo's supplier of yore) exited the panel market and left it as LG vs Samsung, it's been a complete disaster. Oh, you wanna pay 1~2k $currency for a fancy OLED monitor? Get used to appalling panel QC (banding, uniformity), VRR flicker and DSC crap.

The available choice for "pay more to get better" continues to dwindle...

[tardedmeme]

And when you do pay more, you're paying more to someone who has figured out how to make you think you are getting better quality, not to someone who is giving you better quality. This is the "market for lemons" effect.

[Earw0rm]

"If you pay 3x more for your appliances (TV, dishwasher, oven, etc...) you don't get something 3x more reliable/better engineered."

You do at the bottom of unregulated markets. For dishwashers and ovens, safety regs generally impose a high floor on the market. There is no $40 oven, because it's physically impossible to make a safety-compliant oven for $40. If it weren't for market regulation, $40 death-trap ovens would be a thing for sure.

The very cheapest compliant unit isn't _much_ worse than a mid-market unit, it might be a bit flimsier and wear out sooner; high-end luxury units aren't much better than mid-market units - because there's not much innovation driving progress at the top end. AEG and Bosch are still generally solid engineering, but there's not much point in paying more than that unless you like the aesthetics.

Mercedes and BMW - small-volume performance models aside - are like the big fashion brands, Vuitton etc., they're selling the idea of luxury to people who aren't even nouveau-riche, more like borrowing money to cosplay loudly as nouveau-riche. Compare old 1970s Merc convertibles with today's, the modern ones are just kind of ugly, aggressive and sad.

ADAM Audio loudspeakers are pretty good or were last time I bought a pair. They're designed as studio monitors but great for listening too. Perhaps they've gone downhill since being bought by a listed company a few years ago?

[jltsiren]

And my dinner table is solid wood from IKEA.

Affordable quality is perhaps harder to find in the US than in some other countries. Because professional salaries are so high, the top 10% is responsible for ~50% of consumer spending. That makes middle spenders a less lucrative market than in countries with more equal incomes.

[Freak_NL]

So many posters here going on about cheap IKEA tables. Did they ever visit IKEA? I have an IKEA wooden dinner table with the top made from sturdy panels of solid wood bars glued together for eternity. We've only had it for twenty years of course, so who can tell if it is any good…

Sure, the LACK coffee table is recycled honeycombed cardboard. That's on purpose, and totally fine. I hope people don't eat their dinner of those outside of student life though.

[ponector]

How many hours it was required for them to work to earn money for that table?

The truth is people mostly want not an improved version but cheaper one.

[roland35]

Its interesting, I think people sometimes think there is some binary existence of furniture sometimes! What's nice about todays modern economy is that there is a whole spectrum of tables I can purchase.

I can get a ultra cheap mdf Walmart table, a slightly less cheap Ikea table, maybe a midrange crate and barrel table, or a very expensive hard wood table from the local furniture store. Here in the Midwest we even have hand made Amish furniture available. So buy what you want!

[gymbeaux]

I think of housing as a better example- KB Home cookie cutter special for $400k or 100-year-old craftsman house for $800k. Most are okay with the $400k cookie cutter special that probably has piss in the walls, because $800k is such a huge increase. I fear most companies won’t want to pay the extra cost for “the same software” to be written by hand.

[nathan_compton]

But there was also a lot of hard work to push legal reforms and protections to ensure quality and a good living for people displaced by or pressed into work by the new models. It isn't just an "adapt or die" situation on a personal level. Society itself must adapt to produce a healthy human condition.

[maeln]

> Goods are usually (although not always) inferior when made by a machine. A hand-crafted solid wood table is still superior to something from Ikea.

I would argue that this is quite the opposite. We may have this perception due to how mass-manufactured product are pushed to insane cost-saving measure due to harsh competition. But machine are far, far more accurate than human, and have been for years. A commercial CNC has insane tolerance, a pick and place machine can accurately place parts that human can barely see, a miter saw can make straight and angle cut that would be very hard using hand tools, ...

And I would argue that your example is even wrong. Almost all Ikea furniture use MDF, which is very dimensionally stable, and once protected with a veneer, is decently resistant to moisture. A solid wood table will contract, warp, etc, depending on the grain of the wood, the humidity, ... And will require much more care and regular use of surface treatment. Of course, "real" wood has its own advantage, but it is a matter of requirement. And even that "hand-craft" table is not hand-crafted. Any woodworking shop today use machines. Circular saw of many types, power drill, planing machines, ... Which are faster and more accurate than hand tool (although hand tool still have their place).

> Fundamentally, Luddites didn't like being replaced by a machine. They were skilled workers, who used to have very desirable skills. Most people didn't need their standard of quality (but customers had no choice.)

And that's the thing. As you mentioned, very few go to a woodworker to buy a several k$ furniture. Most go to mass-produces-cheap-but-decent furniture companies like Ikea because they don't have a whole month of salary to put in furniture. Machine can absolutely help create far better quality product. But the way of the world has always been to favor cheap but good enough goods.

The big difference with LLMs and "IA" is that they are not a circular saw, they are not a CNC, etc. They are not a tool made for a specific purpose and optimize for it that can reach insane tolerances that no human could match (and especially not as fast). They are, as the post mentioned, "a highly sophisticated statistical model designed to mimic the distribution of programming". There is not really any equivalent in human history. This is a bullshit machine that is scarily good at producing valid output.

It's why I think it is so controversial and why the dust still hasn't settled and why the usefulness of LLM are still subject of such heated debate. A miter saw will cut your plank at a 45-degree angle very fast and very accurately. If you do a lot of that, the benefit is obvious. But if you had a “magical” woodworking tool that could cut at an angle, drill counter-sink, glue veneer, etc, all-in-one but the tolerances are completely random, how useful would that be ? How much time would it save you ? It would be really tough to say.

[pyrale]

> Most people didn't need their standard of quality (but customers had no choice.)

Customers don't really have a choice either way. Good luck finding quality clothing, services with decent customer support, etc.

Supply chains supporting quality work are destroyed when an industry gets commoditized, and whenever a company doing quality stuff emerges, it eventually gets bought out and the product gets watered down in order to milk its reputation with inferior product.

[notarobot123]

In the end, the worst part wasn't just loosing artisan jobs and destroying the market for crafted goods. The second order effect was to create a new kind of drudgery in the repetitive and sometimes dangerous work of maintaining the operations of the machine. It created a class of workers who were completely dependent on these kinds of jobs.

[seanmcdirmid]

And yet, clothes would have remained very expensive if we kept doing fabric by hand. Even destitute people in the poorest countries can have clothes these days, the meaning of “who wears the pants in this house” has lost its original (一条裤子) scarcity meaning.

[torben-friis]

>the meaning of “who wears the pants in this house”

That's pants as opposed to skirts. It's a gender implication, not a scarcity one.

[t-3]

You're right for the english version, but the Chinese version is IIRC a family that shares one pair of pants - the person who needs to go outside wears the proper clothes.

[seanmcdirmid]

I was only aware of the Chinese version because my friend explained it to me on my first trip to yunnan in 2002. I always thought the English version descended from the Chinese version, not that they were separate. Oops.

[omnimus]

I think you are misrepresenting the luddites. They were not against technological progress. Many of them were the ones who invented the machines. What they were fighting for were labour rights and distribution of power. They were fighting against enshitification by some guy who stole their collective inventions and by force kicked them out.

They were not against more clothes for everyone - quite the opposite. They were against fast fashion bad quality clothes made in horrible conditions by people (or children) who had no other choice.

[izacus]

I think the case of Luddites shows just how strong anti-worker and anti-union propaganda is - making it a mock word was very effective at preventing uneducated people from understanding what they fought for.

[tao_oat]

The Luddites-as-labour-movement view is not entirely wrong, but also misses a lot. They were also an elite group that fought to preserve their own status and the exclusion of women from the industry.

I thought this was a pretty good post about it: https://www.verysane.ai/p/against-the-luddites

[omnimus]

I am no expert but from books I've read on the topic. It was also pretty diverse movement as is usual with decentralized movements like this. There absolutely were lower class people present who saw it as labour movement.

In other words. The Luddites as elite group that fought to preserve status view is not entirely wrong, but also misses a lot.

In context of audience here - programmers (elite group). You can say that programmers fighting with AI do it to preserve their own status. Or we might trust those (like geohot) who are angry because it's just leading to bad results. It's enshitification - of the result, the working conditions, the ethics. The whole chain.

[seanmcdirmid]

> You can say that programmers fighting with AI do it to preserve their own status. Or we might trust those (like geohot) who are angry because it's just leading to bad results. It's enshitification - of the result, the working conditions, the ethics.

Economic competition should prove either position right in the long term. If AI really is BAD and is just waiting energy, not providing a real benefit and not really making reasonable quality software/content cheaper produce, then the hype will eventually crash. If its SWEs trying to protect their jobs, then one country or the other is going to lean into it for an overwhelming economic advantage and the rest will be forced to follow regardless of what they feel.

The same thing happened during the industrial revolution or even the neolithic revolution. Superior technology will diffuse no matter what barring an overwhelming geographical barrier.

[card_zero]

Doesn't that just say "a pair of pants"? Or literally one line pants.

[thaumasiotes]

条 is the appropriate measure word for pants; they're plural in English, but uncountable (like other nouns) in Chinese.

You could translate it as "a pair of pants", and that's the appropriate way to put it in English, but really it says "one pants".

[card_zero]

I guess the measure word works equivalently to a unit of measurement, then. One bottle of beer, one sack of sugar, one 条 of pant.

[thaumasiotes]

Correct. In Chinese all nouns require them.

(It's not the case, however, that all measure words require nouns. 天 ("day") and 年 ("year") are measure words that are almost always used on their own. There might be an implicit notion of "one day of time" or similar.)

[seanmcdirmid]

You wouldn't be surprised how often chinese learners say 一双裤子 (one pair of pants) rather than 一条裤子 (one long slender flowing pants).

[thaumasiotes]

All learners of Chinese, or just the ones whose native language is English?

I figure the most natural mistake to make when counting pants is to use 件, since that's the measure word that applies to "clothes", but you'd have to already know at least some Chinese in order to make that mistake.

[seanmcdirmid]

Ah, the ones coming from English of course. I don't have much experience in how Koreans or Russians learn Chinese (although I had plenty of non-English classmates when I took language lessons at PKU).

I'm thinking more Kouyu than writing. If I didn't think hard about it, I might say yi shuang kuzi or even, for some reason, yi jian kuzi.

[tonyedgecombe]

>I think a lot of the problem with the current discourse is how black-and-white it is.

There is too much money involved for any rational debate.

[ben_w]

Only on the pro-AI side. The "it is bad" side is diverse on the reasons why, but being overwhelmed by bad content isn't a monetary concern.

[marcta]

Some "ai is bad" arguments come from the threat of losing one's livelihood, which is a monetary concern.

[ben_w]

Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Black and white thinking is not *limited to* monetary concerns.

[swiftcoder]

> There is too much money involved for any rational debate.

For the Sam Altmans of this world, sure, but how much money is the average AI booster commenting on HN actually standing to make?

[ares623]

I get an extra slice of pizza on fridays for being a good little engineer

[seanmcdirmid]

If you are just invested in an index fund, a lot. If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot.

The other side is the stability of your job or job prospects, and we are adversely affected by that instead.

[swiftcoder]

> If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot.

The current state of the stock market is not exactly inspiring confidence about stability over the next few years. Number goes up over sufficient timescales, but if we get a Dotcom-level bust when AI investment slows, there may be a ways to climb back to current levels...

[seanmcdirmid]

You are still financially affected if AI is a bubble set to burst, just as you are if the boom is set to continue.

[roncesvalles]

Exactly. Also, keep in mind that CEOs have both a personal monetary incentive and a fiduciary duty to do what's in the best interest of their company.

It is batshit insane to me that these days we put a microphone to CEOs, ask them to predict the future, and believe it. The only correct answer that they can say into that microphone is whatever is beneficial to their company, nothing less or more.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

The article specifically calls out agents:

> the adoption of AI agents into software development will be one of the most costly mistakes in the field’s history

I don’t use agents, myself. I use a simple chat interface, and a running dialogue, to build software at a function-building level. The resulting workflow is quite “chimerical,” and benefits greatly from my own experience and expertise. The LLM simply lubricates the process.

In my case, it seems to be working well. I would not want to go back.

[ModernMech]

I agree with this. I've tried using agents over the last 2 months, and I feel they are just... bad. I spend more time trying to correct their inexplicable decisions than it takes to just go through step by step in a dialogue.

[swazzy]

I think that's geohot's point as well. They're advocating against being fully "ai pilled". Saying we should be using AI as a tool, not for being a luddite.

[joe_the_user]

LLMs can get you 80-95% of the way

But the big question is "where will '80-95% of the way' get you?"

Do you grind-out the last 5-20% in a period that's disappointingly long compared to the initial step? Or do you another 80% complete thing on top, and another and another until the whole structure collapses?

The post is talking about what groups might go what directions, which seems fair.

[roncesvalles]

>In most cases, LLMs can get you 80-95% of the way

On a tangent, this often gets misinterpreted as "LLMs reduce the time it takes to do the thing by 80-95%". That's not what it means.

[overfeed]

> In most cases, LLMs can get you 80-95% of the way, sometimes less, sometimes more.

That's my experience too, but it's 60-95% solutions in my case[1], with about 120-140% of lines of code required. I wish there was a harness that would let me mask code it should/n't change, because prompt-based refactors fail from the same over-eagerness.

1. I try faster, smaller models first.

[brabel]

We had the same issue until we created a review skill that we run after a LLM is done implementing a feature. We give it a list of things to check that is based on the problems we have observed previously, like writing too verbose code, and ask it to report on issues and suggest improvements. The developer can then give feedback and let the LLM fix the issues, or just address them manually. It’s still early but I’ve been much happier now with the results. It makes it much easier as well for humans to review since there’s a report about what the change is about, why, things to keep an eye on etc. This is something you can do with any harness you may be using and there’s nothing to buy, just a suggestion from someone trying to make the best use of this insane technology.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Either you're a luddite or "ai pilled"."

The Luddites were (violent) activists. They were more than just "non-believers"

Generally, those being labeled "Luddites" in today's "discourse" are people who dare to question the "AI" hype. GGenerally, these people are not activists

[satvikpendem]

Semantic weakening is common in all languages, just as literally doesn't literally mean literally.

[kcguyu]

I completely agree with your sentiment of “black or white.” I believe it comes from social media with primarily “radical” perspectives being the ones in the spotlight. Just not an environment that promotes nuance or friendly discussion

[bluegatty]

Yes, exactly, it's 'us' not the AI, which is great.

Why on earth would we ever remotely compare a 'tool' to 'a software engineer' ?

The 'great delusion' is not that 'AI can't code' - because obviously it can, and very well.

The problem is the 'anthropomorphism' and all this AGI nonsense.

If we called it 'Stochastic Mechanisms' and did not 'personalize' our prompts, refer to them as 'chat' or give them 'personalities' but remained in the domain of 'Stochastic Language CLI' ... then our metaphors would pbably not cloud our judgments.

Let the philosophers argue about AGI.

[easyThrowaway]

Because the alternative would've been telling everyone "here's the Stochastic Machine. The more what you write looks like the sources we blatantly stol- I mean, trained from, the closer it gets to output working code". And we're not ready to admit we don't want to know how the sausage is made.

By anthropomorphizing it, we give it some sort of authorship, which clears our collective conscience from what's really happening.

[gizajob]

The saner philosophers don’t need to argue about AGI because we’re absolutely nowhere near it.

[pixl97]

Please give a well defined and agreed upon definition of AGI.

For all I know you're the same guy that says we don't need to talk about nuclear weapons in 1937 because we're nowhere near them.

[esikich]

You are a tool. You're a human resource, from the perspective of the organization. That pushes buttons on bunch of other tools. That's why you compare it.

Edit: I don't mean tool as a perjoritive.

[RagnarD]

I think the irony is that the perception of being called a tool as an insult, is exactly your meaning of it.

[bluegatty]

There are innumerable other software and process technologies that we use - and never before have we compared them to 'Engineers'.

The 'tool of the system' analogy is not an unreasonable point of discussion but it does not help us in this scenario.

[jay_kyburz]

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. Perhaps because people don't like the sentiment. But its true, people are hired as tools to write programs.

Both people and AI make mistakes. Perhaps the AI makes more, a lot more, but its so fast, and works around the clock, and has no ego, there is a chance that the benefits outweigh the costs.

[hansmayer]

> But it seems everyone is arguing about whether LLMs can be perfect software engineers

That's just those of us with longer memory holding the AI companies to the standards they declared themselves. Nobody forced Sam Altman to blab about a team of pocket PhDs, did they? I don't want the crap that does it correct 60℅ of the time - where is the god damn nation of PhDs in a datacemter already? Where is the AI doing all the SWE work "in 3-6 months"?

[pickleRick243]

You want the AI that's doing all the SWE work in 3-6 months? Somehow I doubt that.

[hansmayer]

No buddy, not me. Dario Amodei however, keeps announcing it every about 6 months, on the dot. Last time i January this year. So I just want them held acccountable to their own statements. Otherwise if they would be untrue, that is at best incompetence, and at worst investor fraud. Both should draw serious consequences, given the ungodly sums which are burnt into these pipe dreams.