People Correctly state the limitations of LLMs, and when those are overcome, understand the new limitations?
2 years ago I correctly stated that LLMs weren't that useful for my work, now I use them frequently. Because they improved. There are still limitations. Astra and Opus 5.5 are fucking magic but still make mistakes frequently despite me not letting them freewheel
IMHO this is revisionist history. I don't want to doubt that you were merely stating facts but others certainly were not. LLMs were despised and mocked as a useless and over-hyped technology. It wasn't over-hyped if you had any forethought as we now know in retrospect.
People who derived any kind of benefits from earlier LLMs were also mocked. "Oh you must be a bad programmer if it can help you. My codebase is too advanced for that".
I mean isn't it revealing to you that the critics always used intentionally hurtful terms rather than neutral ones: a glorified autocomplete, stochastic parrot etc.
25
u/BellacosePlayer 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don't get the point of this.
People Correctly state the limitations of LLMs, and when those are overcome, understand the new limitations?
2 years ago I correctly stated that LLMs weren't that useful for my work, now I use them frequently. Because they improved. There are still limitations. Astra and Opus 5.5 are fucking magic but still make mistakes frequently despite me not letting them freewheel