12,270 karma · joined May 9, 2013
All of the best AI-made software projects are also driven by experienced human software developers steering and priming the models. Does that mean the projects "aren't made by AI"?
No, it just means AI is not quite good enough yet to fully replace humans, and, so, unsurprisingly, the best results will be obtained from people who are already great at a field and who take the time to squeeze as much force multiplication out of LLMs as possible. The AI is still doing well over 95% of the significant work.
My hot take is that it's not really that terrible in the long run for work since I think LLMs will probably be nearly or actually AGI and better white collar workers than most humans within 5 years of today. But it is very funny and surreal in the meantime.
It is definitely bad for school, though. Kids IMO should actually be encouraged to use LLMs but not in or for class work outside of an AI best practices class. Probably stop giving them homework (90% will always try to find a way to make AI do it) and have them solve problems in class hours with no electronics so that they're forced to not defer learning. This will become even more important once we have AGI.
One trade-off is even some obviously LLM text won't get detected by them, but they work really hard to ensure false positives are rare since a false accusation is much worse for society than someone getting away with LLM meatpuppetry.
But the product will probably work decently enough. And as long as the humans are sufficiently devoted to testing and nitpicking and improving the product design and UX choices made by the LLM, they can get away with not caring much about its system design.
Also, by the time the code really needs to be rewritten (1 - 3 years), the latest models will probably be noticeably less bad at this. Humans who are persistent enough in their attempts to tip the model away from these basins already see at least some success.
Combined with other general improvements, model companies will probably find ways to do more post-training on not just "can it complete all of these isolated coding tasks with a 100% pass rate" but "can it consistently inhabit a mindset that values the art of elegant code and simple, clean architecture as an intrinsic goal over a very long time horizon". Perhaps in a way where a harness instruction can make the model especially tap into that mode.
You're right that even in years from now an experienced programmer will get better results with an LLM than a non-programmer will, but I think with each passing year that gap will slowly shrink. Learning programming will always only ever help, but if the non-programmer actually has sufficiently good ideas that they want to start working on immediately, it probably actually is a better use of their time to make the initial version before knowing anything about software development and then to teach themselves (real) software development as they continue working on things. I think this would be the case even if LLMs never got any better than they are today, and I think they're almost definitely going to get way better at programming than they are today.
(Nor is what I just wrote, there.)
(It's possible AI rewrote an article first written by a human here or whatever, but the point is that I can just tell this is mostly or entirely LLM output.)
I use LLMs all day every day. I think they're great. I just don't like humans who put their name to what an LLM did.
I like LLMs and use them daily, but I don't really like when people use them undisclosed for long-form prose writing.
Weird question: do you have any tips on how one might apply these principles to a semi-stochastic synth plugin for musicians?
(I have several ideas, but I'd be curious to hear yours, independently.)
It probably won't be as good as an artful human designer hand-crafting a world, but it can be better than something overly random and blandly uniform in distribution.