Just the fact that even retail quality hardware is still improving at local LLM significantly is still a great sign. If AI quality remained the same, and the cost for local hardware dropped to $1000, it would still be the greatest thing since the internet IMO. So even if the worst happens and all progress stops, I'm still very happy with what we got.

▲

leptons 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>I'm still very happy with what we got

"One person's slop is another person's treasure"

I'm not all that impressed with "AI". I often "race" the AI by giving it a task to do, and then I start coding my own solution in parallel. I often beat the AI, or deliver a better result.

Artificial Intelligence is like artificial flavoring. It's cheap and tastes passable to most people, but real flavors are far better in every way even if it costs more.

	▲	LadyCailin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		At their current stage, this feels like the wrong way to use them. I use them fully supervised, (despite the fact that feels like I’m fighting the tools), which is kind of the best of both worlds. I review every line of code before I allow the edit, and if something is wrong, I tell it to fix it. It learns over time, especially as I set rules in memories, and so the process has sped up, to the point that this goes way faster than if I would have done that myself. Not all tasks are appropriate for LLMs at all, but when they are, this supervised mode is quite fast, and I don’t believe the output to be slop, but anyways I feel like I own every line of code still.