Hacker News Reader

We've had the best people using the best and most expensive models. They confidently produce shit they thought they understood but didn't.

LLMs remove personal exploration from tasks and that's where you really get to know things.

View on HN

We've all seen best people confidently produce shit throughout the history, before the LLMs.

Now they can do it faster than ever and to the detriment of everyone. Which is the problem.

When you optimise for fast and not correct, things are fucked.

Then they've been fucked since C beat Lisp, and that hasn't been enough to cause Silicon Valley to implode.

That is a completely different argument.

No it's not. If "bad software delivered faster" is a problem, it's a problem long before LLMs. But the history of software-based products has shown that "delivered faster" is consistently more important, as bad software that attains significant usage will be made into good software one way or another.

I'm not skeptical of the idea that LLMs will be useful tools to cost-effetively develop high-quality software. I am, however, skeptical that the input to these LLMs will remain mostly informal and conversational.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com