If an LLM could be profitable trading why wouldn't the creators use it themselves and not release it? It'd be by far the most profitable thing they could do.
1,815 karma · joined April 6, 2025
LLMs are for sure useful and a productivity boost but generating 99% of your code with it is way overdoing it.
It's full of fluff. Analogies that sound like something a 12 year old would make, but make no sense when you stop to think about them.
It's full of baloney that the author didn't even intend to communicate.
That's where the "soulless" part comes from. There's no consistent mind behind the writing with opinions of its own, formulated into one understandable framework it's trying to convey. It's just a mishmash of BS that only superficially resembles it, made to trick us.
People live with families in multi-generational homes until they're married, sometimes after. Retirement plans are your kids looking after you.
Prices also aren't lowered across the board - it's mostly housing and anything where labor is a major part of the cost. Cars are similar prices. Groceries, utilities and tech also.
LLMs don't know when you're under-specifying the problem.
Wouldn't it be better to solve that with education? Also MacOS gives you a warning when you're opening something not vetted by them.
The idea that it's some higher authorities responsibility to keep us safe quickly slides into losing freedoms we care about.
Would you also like all websites to be ISP-approved?
We could also have all social media filtered through LLM guards to keep us safe?
Maybe link our IDs to our online identity to protect our kids.
For LM Studio under server settings you can start a local server that has an OpenAI-compatible API. You'd need to point Copilot to that. I don't use Copilot so not sure of the exact steps there
You're probably not going to get anything working well as an agent on an M2 MacBook, but smaller models do surprisingly well for focused autocomplete. Maybe the Qwen3.5 9B model would run decently on your system?
1. The problem case is very well specified
2. There's a verification harness it can work with
3. You don't care about long-term maintainability or security
Producing the things that solve for these is 90% of the job.
Consider what goes into setting up automated verification: how do you write unit tests when the units aren't built yet? You need to understand and design them. That's the entire premise behind TDD. You design the code through writing the tests first.
I don't see AI improving on this area. Encoding business invariants into high value automated verification isn't itself a verifiable task. Neither are code quality, security, or knowing when something is under-specified.
For production work specifically I think the future may look like developers doing mostly specification, verification and review with the AI doing the plumbing. I'm not actually convinced this is a long term win as there are a lot of trade-offs, but we'll see.
..or are they selling the accounts?
Half the comments in here are also along the same lines
So maybe it's true you won't get "the best", but I don't think you'll be that far off.