Programming

21165 readers

131 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Trusting your own judgement on 'AI' is a huge risk (www.baldurbjarnason.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OC below by @[email protected]

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can't think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can't think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns

Ah still rolling out the old "stochastic parrot" nonsense I see.

Anyway on to the actual article... I was hoping it wouldn't make these basic mistakes:

[Typescript] looks more like an “enterprise” programming language for large institutions, but we honestly don’t have any evidence that it’s genuinely more suitable for those circumstances than the regular JavaScript.

Yes we do. Frankly if you've used it it's so obviously better than regular JavaScript you probably don't need more evidence (it's like looking for "evidence" that film stars are more attractive than average people). But anyway we do have great papers like this one.

Anyway that's slightly beside the point. I think the article is right that smart people are not invulnerable to manipulation or falling for "obviously" stupid ideas. I know plenty of very smart religious people for example.

However I think using this to dismiss LLMs is dumb, in the same way that his dismissal of Typescript is. LLMs aren't homeopathy or religion.

I have used LLMs to get some work done and... guess what, it did the work! Do I trust it to do everything? Obviously not. But sometimes I don't need perfect code. For example recently I asked it to create an example SystemVerilog file for me utilising as many syntax features as possible (testing an auto-formatter). It did a pretty good job. Saved some time. What psychological hazard have I fallen for exactly?

Overall, B-. Interesting ideas but flawed logic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

LLMs can’t think - only generate statistically plausible patterns

Ah still rolling out the old “stochastic parrot” nonsense I see.

Ah still rolling out the old "computers think" pseudo-science.

I have used LLMs to get some work done and… guess what, it did the work!

Ah yes the old pointless vague anecdote.

What psychological hazard have I fallen for exactly?

Promoting pseudo-science.

Overall D. Neither interesting nor new nor useful.