[embedding-shape]

I wonder if people said the same when compilers first appeared in the software development scene.

> the whole LLM premise runs on one little assumption that they ll improve indefinitely. you are forgetting the law of diminishing returns

To be honest, I think I'd remain happy if they just stayed at the level they are now, maybe bit faster and cheaper (and ideally more energy efficient), best would be to run it locally too, but I don't really need them to get "better" to make good use of them at this point.

[benoau]

The difference is you can trust the compiler without knowing what System.out.println("Hello, World!") is going to ultimately look like, and the vast majority of what compilers output will never need human intervention to fix something or human oversight to ensure correctness and fitness for purpose.

[happyPersonR]

>” To be honest, I think I'd remain happy if they just stayed at the level they are now, maybe bit faster and cheaper (and ideally more energy efficient), best would be to run it locally too, but I don't really need them to get "better" to make good use of them at this point.”

I have bad news … you’re gonna be mad… they’re gonna make it expensive otherwise they can’t get the hockey stick ROI.

[MaxMatti]

I'd like to see them try to increase prices as long as open source models that are roughly in the same league are available

[JodieBenitez]

> I think I'd remain happy if they just stayed at the level they are now, maybe bit faster and cheaper

Definitely ! It's so useful as is, even without spitting a single line of code, as an analysis and documentation tool, it's already great. Now a faster and/or cheaper version: perfect. Make it runnable on commodity hardware: icing on the cake.

[foco_tubi]

“FORTRAN should virtually eliminate coding and debugging.” — FORTRAN Preliminary Report, 1954.

[tim-projects]

Relative to punch cards and writing in machine code, I imagine the statement was entirely correct. And still is.