| ▲ | alexpotato 5 hours ago | |
I work in DevOps at a firm that has been very enthusiastic about using LLMs (in the good sense). The phases were basically: - try out having the LLM do "a lot" - now even more - now run multiple agents - back to single agents but have the agents build tools - tools that are deterministic AND usable by both the humans (EDIT: and the LLMs) The reasons: 1. Deterministic tools (for both deployments and testing) get you a binary answer and it's repeatable 2. In the event of an outage, you can always fall back to the tool that a human can run 3. It's faster. A quick script can run in <30 seconds but "confabulating" always seemed to take 2-3 minutes. Really, we are back to this article: https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3194653.3197520 aka "make a list of tasks, write scripts for each task, combine the scripts into functions, functions become a system" | ||
| ▲ | worik 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Sounds like the bleeding edge. LLMs are tools, but unreliable They can magnify the reach of a person, but not replace them Having LLMs write the tools is the correct approach for magnifying the reach of a Dev Ops programmer | ||