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.
In a sense, the decision is somewhat made for us in that we're developing next-generation stuff that LLMs don't know how to auto-code at @spritely. We are working on core infrastructure that needs to be carefully thought about and written. LLMs introduce a lot of errors and aren't good at doing this kind of work on their own.
And the goal was always that our work is there to be lifted from, to spread outward, the way people have long drawn from the well of the MIT / Stanford research labs in CS for decades, but for decentralized networking today
But doing it now, in this way, in this environment, it's just really depressing and demotivating.
@cwebber @spritely I guess, a valuable motivator in the current LLM mire could be examples from history where clearly articulated technology—developed by small teams has had *huge* impact.
There are so many examples, but say, Sophie Wilson and colleagues and a need for low-cost educational computers resulting in ARM.
And now Sam Battle/LMNC imagining how musical tech can be constructed from scrap—likely about to re-invigorate UK’s entry to Eurovision! ‘Future history’ makers, if you will.
Christine Lemmer-Webber
Steve