upvote

points

by ori_b9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tossandthrow8 hours ago|
next
[-]
That is not the entire selling point - so you are very wrong.

You very much decide how you employ LLMs.

Nobody are keeping a gun to your head to use them. In a certain way.

Sonif you use them in a way that increase you inherent risk, then you are incredibly wrong.

reply
upvoteby ori_b8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I suggest you read the sales pitches that these products have been making. Again, when I say that this is the selling point, I mean it: This is why management is buying them.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I've read the sales pitches, and they're not about replacing the need for skill. The Claude Design announcement from yesterday (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-design-anthropic-labs) is pretty typical in my experience. The pitch is that this is good for designers, because it will allow them to explore a much broader range of ideas and collaborate on them with counterparties more easily. The tool will give you cool little sliders to set the city size and arc width, but it doesn't explain why you would want to adjust these parameters or how to determine the correct values; that's your job.

I understand why a designer might read this post and not be happy about it. If you don't think your management values or appreciates design skill, you'd worry they're going to glaze over the bullet points about design productivity, and jump straight to the one where PMs and marketers can build prototypes and ignore you. But that's not what the sales pitch is focused on.

reply
upvoteby ori_b8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The majority of examples in the document you linked describe 'person without<skill> can do thing needing <skill>'. It's very much selling 'more output, less skill'
reply
upvoteby trinsic28 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Sales pitches dont mean jack, WTF are you talking about?
reply
upvoteby foobarchu7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sales pitches are literally the same thing as "the selling point".

Neither of those is necessarily a synonym for why you personally use them

reply
upvoteby andy_ppp8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I see it completely the opposite way, you use an LLM and correct all its mistakes and it allows you to deliver a rough solution very quickly and then refine it in combination with the AI but it still gets completely lost and stuck on basic things. It’s a very useful companion that you can’t trust, but it’s made me 4-5x more productive and certainly less frustrated by the legacy codebase I work on.
reply
upvoteby trinsic28 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah I whole hardheartedly disagree with this. Because I understand the basics of coding I can understand where the model gets stuck and prompt it in other directions.

If you don't know whats going on through the whole process, good luck with the end product.

reply
upvoteby Forgeties798 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
They purportedly solve the problem of needing skill to get things done. IME, this is usually repeated by VC backed LLM companies or people who haven’t knowingly had to deal with other people’s bad results.

This all bumps up against the fact that most people default to “you use the tool wrong” and/or “you should only use it to do things where you already have firm grasp or at least foundational knowledge.”

It also bumps against the fact that the average person is using LLM’s as a replacement for standard google search.

reply