Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It is "inevitable" in the sense that in 99% of the cases, tomorrow is just like yesterday.

LLMs have been continually improving for years now. The surprising thing would be them not improving further. And if you follow the research even remotely, you know they'll improve for a while, because not all of the breakthroughs have landed in commercial models yet.

It's not "techno-utopian determinism". It's a clearly visible trajectory.

Meanwhile, if they didn't improve, it wouldn't make a significant change to the overall observations. It's picking a minor nit.

The observation that strict prompt adherence plus prompt archival could shift how we program is both true, and it's a phenomenon we observed several times in the past. Nobody keeps the assembly output from the compiler around anymore, either.

There's definitely valid criticism to the passage, and it's overly optimistic - in that most non-trivial prompts are still underspecified and have multiple possible implementations, not all correct. That's both a more useful criticism, and not tied to LLM improvements at all.






Are there places that follow the research that speak to the layperson?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: