Emily š³ļøāšš³ļøāā§ļøMy biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they werenāt a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, Iām modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs donāt have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. Itās just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. Youāre trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldnāt have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
Nick Heer
Metin Seven šØ
MostlyHarmless
Grumpy Website
Niki Tonsky
FlohEinstein
The Oatmeal
Stefan Judis