Anti-LLM Sentiment Considered Harmful

Yeah I generally agree with your conclusions. LaurentRDC: > I expect a machine to be 100% deterministic and consistent. When GHC has a soundness issue, it’s a big deal. So up until now software development has had a clear division of labour between consistent deterministic special-purpose largely defect-free software tools, and creative general-purpose error-prone nondeterministic human developers. LLMs awkwardly straddle that division. They’re software tools, but they’re general-purpose, non-deterministic, and error-prone, but also infinitely patient and tireless. They’re not human, but they’re “human-shaped” (anthropomorphic) to some extent, having been trained on human thought. So if you looking to slot in an LLM as just one more tool in your toolchain, you’re going to run into a lot of problems. Using LLMs is a very different way of working, it’s a bit like using a tool, and it’s a bit like pair programming, and we’re still figuring out the best ways to get it to work.