• Nalivai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The car analogy doesn’t work because you’re not the one making the code/driving the car. It drives itself, and you sometimes can propose some directions for it to steer.
    The problems with llm aren’t just that sometimes your shit doesn’t work or obviously bad, that’s what you’re talking about, and that’s what minimally responsible sloperators can catch. The main problem is it writes something that looks OK to a human (that’s a criteria for it) but sometimes it’s unexpectedly idiotic in random places (because not being idiotic wasn’t a criteria). You need to check way more thoroughly for it, and you can’t use normal shortcuts that help you with it. So you obviously don’t do that.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      See, that’s the issue. People letting it “drive itself” get worse results. You should be the one holding the standards and guiding the model, otherwise you will be frustrated.

      • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I saw this advice too, the problem with being very detailed is a question why not use a less ambiguous languages to do it?

        Why not write the explanation in language like Python. Why should I write it in English when I can say the same thing in Python and it is actually easier to do for me.