upvote

points

by alpaylan10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby liveoneggs10 hours ago|
next
[-]
The future is about embracing absolute chaos. The great reveal of LLMs is that, for the most part, nothing actually mattered except the most shallow approximation of a thing.
reply
upvoteby belZaah8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is true only for a small subset of problems. If you write crypto or hardware drivers, details do matter.
reply
upvoteby wizzwizz49 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The great reveal of LLMs is that our systems of checks and balances don't really work, and allow grifters to thrive, but despite that most people were actually trying to do their jobs properly. Perhaps nothing matters to you except the most shallow approximation of a thing, but there are usually people harmed by such negligence.
reply
upvoteby liveoneggs8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I'm just as upset as you are about it, believe me. Unfortunately I have to live in the world as I see it and what I've observed in the last 18-ish months is a complete breakdown of prior assumptions.
reply
upvoteby skydhash9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Imagine if the amount of a bank transfer does not matter, but it can only be an approximation, also you can approximate the selected account too. Or the system for monitoring the temperature of blood stockage for transfusion…

Often it seems like tech maximalists are the most against tech reliability.

reply
upvoteby wavemode7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Well, the person who vibe-coded the banking app also vibe-coded a bunch of test cases, so this will only affect a small percentage of customers. When it does and they lose a bunch of money, well, you have a PR team and they don't, so just sweep the story under the rug.

Imagine that - you got your project done ahead of schedule (which looks great on your OKRs) AND finally achieved your dream of no longer being dependent on those stupid overpaid, antisocial software engineers, and all it cost you was the company's reputation. Boeing management would be proud.

Lots of business leaders will do the math and decide this is the way to operate from now on.

reply
upvoteby snovv_crash9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
No need to be so practical.

I suggest when their pointer dereferences, it can go a bit forward or backwards in memory as long as it is mostly correct.

reply
upvoteby SecretDreams9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Let's give people a choice. My banking will be deterministic, others can have probabilistic banking. Every so often, they transfer me some money by random chance, but at least they can say their banking is run by LLMs. Totally fair trade.
reply
upvoteby ModernMech6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think the exact opposite is true: LLMs revealed that when you average everything together, it's really bland and uninteresting no matter how technically good. It's the small choices that bring life into a thing and transform it from slop into something interesting and worthy of attention.
reply
upvoteby liveoneggs5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think we agree but my prediction is that the slop will win
reply
upvoteby raw_anon_11118 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Before LLMs and now more than a decade ago in my career, I was assigned a task and my job was to translate that task into a working implementation. I was guided by the “guesses” that other developers made. I had to trust that they could do FizzBuzz competently without having to tell them to use the mod operator

Then my job became I am assigned a larger implementation and depending on how large the implementation was, I had to design specifications for others to do some or all of the work and validate the final product for correctness. I definitely didn’t pore over every line of code - especially not for front end work that I stopped doing around the same time.

The same is true for LLMs. I treat them like junior developers and slowly starting to treat them like halfway competent mid level ticket takers.

reply
upvoteby blazinglyfast10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> even if it was deterministic (which you can technically make it to be I guess?)

No. LLMs are undefined behavior.

reply
upvoteby xixixao10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
OP means “given the same input, produce the same output” determinism. This isn’t really much different from normal compilers, you might have a language spec, but at the end of the day the results are determined by the concrete compiler’s implementation.

But most LLM services on purpose introduce randomness, so you don’t get the same result for the same input you control as a user.

reply
upvoteby zaphar7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You can get deterministic output if just turn the temperature all the way down. The problem is that you usually get really bad results, deterministically. It turns out the randomness helps in finding solutions.
reply
upvoteby recursive6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can also get deterministic output if you use whatever temperature you want and use an arbitrary fixed RNG seed.
reply
upvoteby 10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply