But we have been sold to use these constantly falsified AI summaries as the go-to source of "truth" by all levels of society. We're trading truth for an illusion of short-term gains. This will not have good consequences.

I love these quotes. I got a much deeper, more elegant understanding of the grammar of a human language as I wrote a phrase generator and parser for it. Writing and refactoring it gave me an understanding of how the grammar works. (And LLMs still confidently fail at really basic tasks I ask them for in this language.)

We are trading the long term benefits for truth and correctness for the short term benefits of immediate productivity and money. This is like how some cultures have valued cheating and quick fixes because it's "not worth it" to do things correctly. The damage of this will continue to compound and bubble up.

These are fundamentals of CS that we are forgetting as we dismantle all truth and keep rocketing forward into LLM psychosis.

> I care about this. I don't want to push slop, and I had no real answer.

The answer is to write and understand code. You can't not want to push slop, and also want to just use LLMs.

My dad recently passed away but some of the sweetest things we remember as kids was how he would always tell us "make up stories." They were silly little stories that were probably lame, but we could feel his love for us as he took the time to spin up some silly little story. I would never trade that for the best LLM creativity.

I wish people understood that this is pretty much true of software building as well.

I may be an odd one but I'm refusing to use agents, and just happily coding almost everything myself. I only ask a LLM occasional questions about libraries etc or to write the occasional function. Are there others like me put there?

I may be an odd one but I'm refusing to use agents, and just happily coding everything myself. I only ask a LLM occasional questions about libraries etc. Are there others like me put there?

Wouldn't everything that agents produce be better described as a "layer of garbage?"

It often doesn't work. That's the point. A calculator works 100% of the time. A LLM might work 95% of the time, or 80%, or 40%, or 99% depending on what you're doing. This is difference and a key feature.

1. hand arithmetic -> using a calculator

2. assembly -> using a high level language

3. writing code -> making an LLM write code

Number 3 does not belong. Number 3 is a fundamentally different leap because it's not based on deterministic logic. You can't depend on an LLM like you can depend on a calculator or a compiler. LLMs are totally different.

https://www.raml.co/about/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15211

https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15211

Already we have Resource Aware ML which

> automatically and statically computes resource-use bounds for OCaml programs

https://www.raml.co/about/