Are there really companies losing right now for using less AI?
Think - would you rather your telecom company’s customer support be AI-forward? Would you pay an extra $5 per month to ensure that you get humans solving your problems immediately when you call with an issue?
What about your backup software? Would you rather choose the company that comes out with new innovations in backing up your data and tons of features, but occasionally breaks everything? Or would you want to choose a company for backup software that is slow at adding anything new and reliable? Isn’t it good if this is deterministic?
What about even a fitness tracking watch. Are there really that many missing features that need to be released way faster? Or is it better if it just tracks your heart rate and workouts well and then gets out of your way? Same here, don’t you want the features to be reliable and deterministic?
I'd be fine with an LLM for customer support, as long as it's empowered to solve my problem. There's nothing a low-level CS representative does that couldn't be handled by an LLM. In both cases, the limiting factor is the authority granted to them by their employer.
Nobody uses an LLM for watches or data backup AFAIK so those seem like moot points.
So, this is a complete nonsense take. Why do people keep making this kind of comparison? Is there really such a lack of critical thinking being taught these days?
What you were taught no longer matters, compared to what some of the rest of have learned over the past couple of years. Sorry. Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better, but it won't change anything.
This comment has no substance to it. It's the same as posting "I am right and you are wrong. 'Sorry' if me being right makes you feel bad, but you are wrong."
People are asking legitimate questions whenever this is brought up, because the comparison is wrong. Compilers are an optimization of the previous paradigm, they let you do the exact same thing as what was done in the preceding decades, just faster. LLMs are not that, they are just a completely separate thing that exists alongside regular programming. Arguing that their use isn't just another option, but a superior and total replacement doesn't explain why you think that randomness is a perfect substitute for determinism. The only people I see promoting this view are ones who only want to look at graphs where lines are going up without caring about anything else. Because I think that even if LLMs get 10 times better, we'll still have industries and use cases where determinism will dominate, ones where you get one take to get things right. For instance, I would not fly on a plane with firmware that was created by a guy hitting Generate, going for a coffee break, coming back and saying "yea looks good".