I'm a hardcore LLM booster but I agree that there's a place for LLM-free projects. In fact human generated code is still superior to even frontier LLM generated code, as long as you're willing take a massive productivity penalty.
replyI'm of the opinion that improved developer productivity has been a net negative for at least a decade. Regardless of my opinion of LLMs, I don't want it any easier for people to add more antifeatures and pointless changes.
replyGotta give the AIs some new original material to learn from, eh?
replyI see why you see it as contradiction. I guess we've all been through a lot of contradictory feelings these past one or two years.
replyI just feel like eliminating LLM output is (1) not feasible (2) not the right solution to the problem.
As far as I can tell, either LLMs naturally fail to be viable, we collectively decide to put a stop to it, or we end up in one of several dystopias.
replyMy bet is that we end up building an awful outcome for nearly humans, which means that trying to put a stop to it is a duty, even if it's likely to fail. I feel the same about climate change -- it's likely that we're going to fail to keep much of earth habitable, but it's not morally acceptable to stop trying.
I now feel like the efforts put into trying to stop it are wasted and the people wasting these efforts are smart enough that they could instead be trying to steer the whole thing in a better direction.
replyIgnorance won't help us. I agree with the negatives, I just feel like this approach is backwards.
In which direction would you steer a house fire to lead to a better outcome?
replyThere's no good endpoint for people if AI succeeds, it's that simple. It doesn't matter how many people get to roast marshmallows as the place burns.