>This is the most handwaving per paragraph I've ever seen.
Yes: "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language" if a fair summarization of my point.
Not sure the purpose of "whatever that means" that you added. It's clear what it means. Thought, casual language seems to be a problem for you. Do you only always discuss in formally verified proofs? If so, that's a you problem, not an us or LLM problem :)
>Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point.
I don't know who those "most people are". Most developers already hand those tasks to LLMs, and more will in the future, as it's a market/job pressure.
(I'm not saying it's good or good enough as a quality assessment. In fact, I don't particularly like it. But I am saying it's "good enough" as in, people will deem it good enough to be shipped).
> I don't know who those "most people are". Most developers already hand those tasks to LLMs, and more will in the future, as it's a market/job pressure.
This is definitely not true. Outside of the US, very few devs can afford to pay for the computer and/or services. And in a couple years, I believe, devs in the US will be in for a rude awakening when the current prices skyrocket.
The "whatever that means" isn't a judgement jab at your point, merely acknowledging the hand waving of my own with "good enough".
I hope this comment thread helps with your cheeky jab that I might have a problem understanding or using casual language.
I'm not sure if it's moving the goalpost or not to back away from a strong claim that LLMs are at the "good enough" (whatever that means!) level now and instead fall back to "some devs will just ship it and therefore that's good enough, by definition".
Regardless, I think we agree that, if LLMs are "good enough" in this way then we can think a lot less about code and logic and instead focus on prompts and feature requests.
I just don't think we agree on what "good enough" is, if current LLMs produce it with less effort than alternatives, and if most devs already believe the LLM generated code is good enough for that.
I use LLMs for a lot of dev work but I haven't personally seen these things one- or even many- shot things to the level I'd feel comfortable being on call for.
>I just don't think we agree on what "good enough" is, if current LLMs produce it with less effort than alternatives, and if most devs already believe the LLM generated code is good enough for that.
Don't need to consider what they think, one can just see their "revealed preferences", what they actually do. Which for the most part is adopting agents.
>I use LLMs for a lot of dev work but I haven't personally seen these things one- or even many- shot things to the level I'd feel comfortable being on call for.
That's true for many devs one might have working for their team as well. Or even one's self. So we review, we add tests, and so on. So we do that when the programming language is a "real" programming language too, doesn't have to change when it is natural language to an agent. What I'm getting at, is, that this is not a show stopper to the point of TFA.
Yes: "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language" if a fair summarization of my point.
Not sure the purpose of "whatever that means" that you added. It's clear what it means. Thought, casual language seems to be a problem for you. Do you only always discuss in formally verified proofs? If so, that's a you problem, not an us or LLM problem :)
>Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point.
I don't know who those "most people are". Most developers already hand those tasks to LLMs, and more will in the future, as it's a market/job pressure.
(I'm not saying it's good or good enough as a quality assessment. In fact, I don't particularly like it. But I am saying it's "good enough" as in, people will deem it good enough to be shipped).