>If LLMs were actually good for programming, I would consider it, but they just aren't. Especially when we are talking about "assistants" and stuff like that. I feel like I live in an alternate reality when it comes to the AI hype. I have to wonder if people are just that bad at programming or if they have a financial incentive here.
solid points there.
it is surely some of both reasons. for the bad programmers, it will be the former. for those invested in llms, it will be the latter, that is financial incentives - to the tune of billions or millions or close to millions, depending upon whether you are an investor in or founder of a top llm company, or are working in such a company, or in a non-top company. it's the next gold rush, obviously, after crypto and many others before. picks and shovels, anyone?
and, more so for those for whom there are financial incentives, they will strenuously deny your statements, with all kinds of hand waving, expressions of outrage, ridicule, diversionary statements, etc.
that's the way the world goes. not with a bang but a whimper. ;)
I'm not sure whether I'm a "good programmer" or a "bad programmer" but sometimes I just want a problem to go way in the quickest way possible.
I'm not always trying to create a timeless, perfect, jewel and there is a limit to how much I want to follow every highway and byway needed to do stuff across several dozen languages, libraries, platforms and frameworks.
>I'm not sure whether I'm a "good programmer" or a "bad programmer" but sometimes I just want a problem to go way in the quickest way possible.
True. Most programmers would think the same, at times.
>I'm not always trying to create a timeless, perfect, jewel
No one is, most of the time. Only, some people try to create somewhat good things some of the time, even given constraints.
>and there is a limit to how much I want to follow every highway and byway needed to do stuff across several dozen languages, libraries, platforms and frameworks.
Who has the time to do it, unless one is independently wealthy, so don't need to work, and is programming just for fun (although many of us do it for fun, part-time at least).
Yes, my sentiments exactly, and I am sure it's that of many other programmers, too.
The abstraction upon abstraction upon abstraction (Howdy, Java, but not only it) and the combinatorial explosion of technologies X their version(iti)s, is hell - like DLL hell on Windows, except much worse.
>Some days I'm just tired.
So yeah, I hear you, dude, and feel your pain.
But the topic and argument was about whether llms reduce that pain enough to be worthwhile. I guess the answer is: different strokes for different folks.
solid points there.
it is surely some of both reasons. for the bad programmers, it will be the former. for those invested in llms, it will be the latter, that is financial incentives - to the tune of billions or millions or close to millions, depending upon whether you are an investor in or founder of a top llm company, or are working in such a company, or in a non-top company. it's the next gold rush, obviously, after crypto and many others before. picks and shovels, anyone?
and, more so for those for whom there are financial incentives, they will strenuously deny your statements, with all kinds of hand waving, expressions of outrage, ridicule, diversionary statements, etc.
that's the way the world goes. not with a bang but a whimper. ;)
sorry, t.s. eliot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men