Mastodawn

It's demotivating to think that:

- LLMs aren't good at producing original / novel work
- You still need experts to advance that stuff
- It will always be slower to move without using LLMs
- Once an innovation is done though, an innovation can always be scooped up by the LLM users
- "Bro why are you doing all this manually, I just vibe coded that in a weekend"

Will it always be this way? It's depressing in the meanwhile, at least.

Show thread

mhoye Feb 23

@cwebber For what it’s worth I think that we are eventually going to recognize “needing to throw massive computation at things” as a symptom of language and discoverability shortcomings that we’ll find better ways to address. We already package utility up in libraries and deterministic generators, but finding and learning what resources do what remains difficult.

I think there’s still a better future out there where solving new problems is still a non-captured contribution to the common good.

Show thread

mhoye

@cwebber I mean: we can imagine a world where the boilerplate falls away. We can imagine a world where we can describe problem to a computer that lets it say "these are the parts of this problem that seem new, but the rest looks like this thing you already have, that you can use". We can imagine communal systems where solving that new problem becomes a contribution to a common understanding rather than just value to be captured and re-sold as a subscription.