I can’t speak for Lemmy but I’m personally not against LLMs and also use them on a regular basis. As Pennomi said (and I totally agree with that) LLMs are a tool and we should use that tool for things it’s good for. But “thinking” is not one of the things LLMs are good at. And software engineering requires a ton of thinking. Of course there are things (boilerplate, etc.) where no real thinking is required, but non-AI tools like code completion/intellisense, macros, code snippets/templates can help with that and never was I bottle-necked by my typing speed when writing software.
It was always the time I needed to plan the structure of the software, design good and correct abstractions and the overall architecture. Exactly the things LLMs can’t do.
Copilot even fails to stick to coding style from the same file, just because it saw a different style more often during training.
“I’m not again LLMs I just never say anything useful about them and constantly point out how I can’t use them.” The other guy is right and you just prove his point.
I don’t see how that follows because I did point out in another comment that they are very useful if used like search engines or interactive stack overflow or Wikipedia.
LLMs are extremely knowledgeable (as in they “know” a lot) but are completely dumb.
If you want to anthropomorphise it, current LLMs are like a person that read the entire internet, remembered a lot of it, but still is too stupid to win/draw tic tac toe.
So there is value in LLMs, if you use them for their knowledge.
I didn’t say they have no knowledge, quite the opposite. Here a quote from the comment you answered:
LLMs are extremely knowledgeable (as in they “know” a lot) but are completely dumb.
There is a subtle difference between intelligent and knowledgeable. LLM know a lot in that sense that they can remember a lot of things, but they are dumb in that sense that they are completely unable to draw conclusions and put that knowledge into action in any other means besides spitting out again what they once learned.
That’s why LLMs can tell you a lot about about all different kinds of game theory about tic tac toe but can’t draw/win that game consistently.
So knowing a lot and still being dumb is not a contradiction.
I can’t speak for Lemmy but I’m personally not against LLMs and also use them on a regular basis. As Pennomi said (and I totally agree with that) LLMs are a tool and we should use that tool for things it’s good for. But “thinking” is not one of the things LLMs are good at. And software engineering requires a ton of thinking. Of course there are things (boilerplate, etc.) where no real thinking is required, but non-AI tools like code completion/intellisense, macros, code snippets/templates can help with that and never was I bottle-necked by my typing speed when writing software.
It was always the time I needed to plan the structure of the software, design good and correct abstractions and the overall architecture. Exactly the things LLMs can’t do.
Copilot even fails to stick to coding style from the same file, just because it saw a different style more often during training.
“I’m not again LLMs I just never say anything useful about them and constantly point out how I can’t use them.” The other guy is right and you just prove his point.
I don’t see how that follows because I did point out in another comment that they are very useful if used like search engines or interactive stack overflow or Wikipedia.
LLMs are extremely knowledgeable (as in they “know” a lot) but are completely dumb.
If you want to anthropomorphise it, current LLMs are like a person that read the entire internet, remembered a lot of it, but still is too stupid to win/draw tic tac toe.
So there is value in LLMs, if you use them for their knowledge.
You say they have no knowledge and are only good for boilerplate. So you’re contradicting yourself there.
I didn’t say they have no knowledge, quite the opposite. Here a quote from the comment you answered:
There is a subtle difference between intelligent and knowledgeable. LLM know a lot in that sense that they can remember a lot of things, but they are dumb in that sense that they are completely unable to draw conclusions and put that knowledge into action in any other means besides spitting out again what they once learned.
That’s why LLMs can tell you a lot about about all different kinds of game theory about tic tac toe but can’t draw/win that game consistently.
So knowing a lot and still being dumb is not a contradiction.