• sudneo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I hardly see it changed to be honest. I work in the field too and I can imagine LLMs being good at producing decent boilerplate straight out of documentation, but nothing more complex than that.

    I often use LLMs to work on my personal projects and - for example - often Claude or ChatGPT 4o spit out programs that don’t compile, use inexistent functions, are bloated etc. Possibly for languages with more training (like Python) they do better, but I can’t see it as a “radical change” and more like a well configured snippet plugin and auto complete feature.

    LLMs can’t count, can’t analyze novel problems (by definition) and provide innovative solutions…why would they radically change programming?

    • locuester@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You’re missing it. Use Cursor or Windsurf. The autocomplete will help in so many tedious situations. It’s game changing.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      ChatGPT 4o isn’t even the most advanced model, yet I have seen it do things you say it can’t. Maybe work on your prompting.

      • sudneo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That is my experience, it’s generally quite decent for small and simple stuff (as I said, distillation of documentation). I use it for rust, where I am sure the training material was much smaller than other languages. It’s not a matter a prompting though, it’s not my prompt that makes it hallucinate functions that don’t exist in libraries or make it write code that doesn’t compile, it’s a feature of the technology itself.

        GPTs are statistical text generators after all, they don’t “understand” the problem.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s also pretty young, human toddlers hallucinate and make things up. Adults too. Even experts are known to fall prey to bias and misconception.

          I don’t think we know nearly enough about the actual architecture of human intelligence to start asserting an understanding of “understanding”. I think it’s a bit foolish to claim with certainty that LLMs in a MoE framework with self-review fundamentally can’t get there. Unless you can show me, materially, how human “understanding” functions, we’re just speculating on an immature technology.

          • sudneo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            36 minutes ago

            As much as I agree with you, humans can learn a bunch of stuff without first learning the content of the whole internet and without the computing power of a datacenter or consuming the energy of Belgium. Humans learn to count at an early age too, for example.

            I would say that the burden of proof is therefore reversed. Unless you demonstrate that this technology doesn’t have the natural and inherent limits that statistical text generators (or pixel) have, we can assume that our mind works differently.

            Also you say immature technology but this technology is not fundamentally (I.e. in terms of principle) different from what Weizenabum’s ELIZA in the '60s. We might have refined model and thrown a ton of data and computing power at it, but we are still talking of programs that use similar principles.

            So yeah, we don’t understand human intelligence but we can appreciate certain features that absolutely lack on GPTs, like a concept of truth that for humans is natural.