new | show | ask | jobs Github

amelius 2 hours ago

Yes, but bad ingredients do not make a yummy pudding.

Or, it's like trying to make a MacBook Pro by buying electronics boards from AliExpress and wiring them together.

▲

jstanley 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd rather have a laptop made from AliExpress components than only have a single artisanal hand-crafted resistor.

▲

i7l an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's a false dichotomy, because transistors and ICs are manufactured to be deterministic and nearly perfect. LLMs can never be guaranteed to be like that.

Yes, some things are better when manufactured in highly automated ways (like computer chips), but their design has been thoroughly tested and before shipping the chips themselves go through lots of checks to make sure they are correct. LLM code is almost never treated that way today.

▲

amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, the point is that only if you're willing to accept crappy results then you can use AI to build bigger things.

▲

sdoering an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To me that seems like a spurious (maybe even false) dichotomy. You can have crappy results without AI. And you can have great results with AI.

Your contrast is an either or, that - in the real world - does not exist.

Take content written by AI, prompted by a human. A lot of it is slop and crap. And there will be more slop and crap with AI than before. But that was the case, when the medium changed from hand writen to printed books. And when paper and printing became cheap, we had slop like those 10 Cent Western or Romance novellas.

We also still had Goethe, still had Kleist, still had Grass (sorry, very German centric here).

We also have Inception vs. the latest sequel of any Marvel franchise.

I have seen AI writen, but human prompted short stories, that made people well up and find ideas presented in a light not seen before. And I have seen AI generated stories that one wants to purge from my brain.

It isn't the tool - it is the one yielding it.

Question: Did photoshop kill photography? Because honestly, this AI discussion to me sounds very much like the discussion back then.

	▲	weebull an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Question: Did photoshop kill photography? Because honestly, this AI discussion to me sounds very much like the discussion back then. It killed an aspect of it. The film processing in the darkroom. Even before digital cameras were ubiquitous it was standard to get a scan before doing any processing digitally. Chemical processing was reduced the minimum necessary.
	▲	kranner an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Neither the printing press (vis-a-vis handwritten books) nor Photoshop (vis-a-vis photography) are suitable analogies for generative vs handwritten code. I'm really struggling to see the correspondence, sorry.
	▲	amelius an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lightroom killed photography.

▲

mlrtime an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I was going to reply defending AI tooling and crappy results, but I think I'm done with it.

I think there are just a class of people know that think that you cannot get 'macbook' quality with a LLM. I don't know why I try to convince them, it's not in my benefit.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]