I
@shaedrich
I don't think I disagree.
But rhere are valid reasons for reimplementing stuff, however. For example, the numerics world is really happy Eigen came about because some guy saw Lapack and said yuck. And Lapack is *very* uh, "good".
Or sometimes libraries do something pretty small, and is the dependency worth saving a day of implementation?
@cpr320
Of course it's pointless to implement numerical algorithms. And really going it *right* such that is really efficient is very, very difficult.
It's pointless for the purpose of creating a library.
But It's extremely valuable to have done it. You can judge the libraries you use. You have a deep sense of why the API is like it is. you're a much better user of the libraries.
LLMs try to prevent you from being better. And literature indicates they're making you worse.
@brettcodes
@cpr320
I've implemented numerical algorithms. They ran pretty well! I didn't use external libraries because that avoided dependencies.
That was OK for the purpose. Today, depending on the specifics, I'd use my code or a library depending on whether dependencies or performance edged it. I have the *choice*.
LLMs will never give you that choice.
So the code will be worse.
@brettcodes
@cpr320
The point here is that when I code, at the end of the process, I'm a better coder.
WTF would I (or anyone) pay to become a worse programmer when they can become a better one for free? *Without the cognitive risk*.
*Even* if it worked as advertised, it would make no sense versus training an intern.
@brettcodes
@cpr320
Perhaps more central to the post starting this thread, I suspect the very act of "asking" an algorithm for an "explanation" is a slippery slope to believing something about as clever as a gnat (if that) has cognition.
And then the spiral starts.
Because I suspect the answer to my question above is a respectable 80% , which is both amazing and utter garbage.
@brettcodes
@cpr320
so you get a statistically plausible explanation of a statistically plausible piece of code corresponding to a statistically plausible purpose? At what point do we collectively agree that a magic 8 ball is about as correct?
@brettcodes
@cpr320
You're asking the machine for a plan. Which means that you'll get the average plan for whatever problem you're dealing with. Better hope these are well understood problems with a robust "best" solution dominating the training data...
@brettcodes
@cpr320
Are you aware that the LLM is incapable of cognition and therefore it is absurd to ask it how it knows anything?
@brettcodes
@zzt
See. Younger Linus would have been much, much more vulgar, but would have cut that crap out.
This goes completely against 40 years of kernel development standards.
@cstross
Haha, thanks for sacrificing your peace of mind for our sakes.
One place where I deeply disapprove of noise cancelling earphones is on a bike. I've seen too many near misses...
@AmazingMeagen