I think in less than a year writing code manually will be akin to doing arithmetic problems by hand. Sure you can still code manually, but it's going to be a lot faster to use an LLM (calculator).

▲

adamddev1 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People keep using these analogies but I think these are fundamentally different things.

1. hand arithmetic -> using a calculator

2. assembly -> using a high level language

3. writing code -> making an LLM write code

Number 3 does not belong. Number 3 is a fundamentally different leap because it's not based on deterministic logic. You can't depend on an LLM like you can depend on a calculator or a compiler. LLMs are totally different.

▲

Havoc 6 hours ago | parent [-]

There are definitely parallels though. eg you could swap out your compiler for a different one that produces slightly different assembly. Similarly a LLM may implement things differently…but if it works do we care? Probably no more than when you buy software you don’t care precisely what compiler optimisation were used. The precise deterministicness isn’t a key feature

	▲	adamddev1 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> but if it works so we care? It often doesn't work. That's the point. A calculator works 100% of the time. A LLM might work 95% of the time, or 80%, or 40%, or 99% depending on what you're doing. This is difference and a key feature.
	▲	yojat661 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		With the llm, it might work or it might not. If it doesn't work, then you have to keep iterating and hand holding it to make it work. Sometimes that process is less optimal than writing the code manually. With a calculator, you can be sure that the first attempt will work. An idiot with a calculator can still produce correct results. An idiot with an llm often cannot outside trivial solutions.

▲

AstroBen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is true if your calculator sometimes gave the wrong answer and you had to check each time

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

kypro 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree, but writing code is so different to calculations that long-term benefits are less clear.

It doesn't matter how good you are at calculations the answer to 2 + 2 is always 4. There are no methods of solving 2 + 2 which could result in you accidentally giving everyone who reads the result of your calculation write access to your entire DB. But there are different ways to code a system even if the UI is the same, and some of these may neglect to consider permissions.

I think a good parallel here would be to imagine that tomorrow we had access to humanoid robots who could do construction work. Would we want them to just go build skyscrapers and bridges and view all construction businesses which didn't embrace the humanoid robots as akin to doing arithmetic by hand?

You could of course argue that there's no problem here so long as trained construction workers are supervising the robots to make sure they're getting tolerances right and doing good welds, but then what happens 10 years down the road when humans haven't built a building in years? If people are not writing code any more then how can people be expected to review AI generated code?

I think the optimistic picture here is that humans just won't be needed in the future. In theory when models are good enough we should be able to trust the AI systems more than humans. But the less optimistic side of me questions a future in which humans no longer do, or even know how to do such fundamental things.