The thing I find concerning lately is that even a lot of technical people seem to be jumping on the hype train this time around. Obviously LLMs have become very useful tools for assisting some technical tasks but even SOTA models are nowhere near reliable and predictable enough to trust their output completely as YOLO mode agentic workflows effectively do.

Given the nature of LLMs I don't think they can ever clear that bar without some other element being introduced. The nondeterminism and chaotic nature of LLM output is enough to rule them out as a reasonable foundation for any fully automated system that would be controlling anything potentially dangerous or damaging.

But it seems to be heresy at the moment to even suggest that the future might not be bright if everyone just relies on agents driving LLMs to do all the real work. The number of people I've encountered in the past year who I'm fairly sure are smart and technically capable and yet who are also now happy to do development and other tasks either without any human in the loop at all or with at best a cursory LGTM level review before approving the LLM's output is remarkable.

Agreed. I see people using LLM to reply to slack or to commit a git branch!!

Execs expecting to double your workload just because you have LLMs. It's insane at this point

> The nondeterminism and chaotic nature of LLM output is enough to rule them out as a reasonable foundation for any fully automated system that would be controlling anything potentially dangerous or damaging.

You could say the same for humans. The difference is that humans have been conditioned to be extra cautious about things that could get them fired, and there is no benchmark for Meta's model developers to benchmax about that.