| ▲ | photochemsyn 3 hours ago | |
“Fable was the strongest model on the market” - explain why anyone should believe that claim. I’ve been trying to track LLM code generation adoption in the critical infrastructure world - as far as I can tell, it’s nill. Zero. Nada. Nobody is relying on these models to write secure code for anything where failure is catastrophic. Planes falling out of the sky. Nuclear reactors going into meltdown. Electrical grids loosing synchronicity. Lots of these BS claims from the marketing and investment crowd, but - it’s just a useful tool for non-critical areas. That’s all it is. | ||
| ▲ | 00deadbeef 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
I don't understand the point you're making. It can be both the most powerful LLM on the market, and have no adoption in critical infrastructure. | ||
| ▲ | vanuatu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
i know someone who works on nuclear power plants that uses codex obviously you need to review it | ||
| ▲ | esseph 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> it’s just a useful tool for non-critical areas. That’s all it is. Okay. Let's say I agreed with you. If you look at all technology and break down the total market for Critical Workloads vs non-critical workloads, what do you think that works out too, percentage wise? 12% critical? 18%? What if it was 30%! That would still mean 70% of the world's software could possibly be handled by an LLM. If that happens, the 30% of the Critical Workloads stuff is gonna get very, very competitive. | ||