Not commenting on Reid specifically but on the other hand I don't understand why we should listen to the Tech CEO's / Founders about their opinions on the tech they are selling.
As someone who doesn't follow the specifics of how LLMs write, how can you be sure it's an LLM?
I'm asking this genuinely because I've been using stuff like these separators before LLMS - now someone can just say "ahh dismiss the content they used style X it's LLM, it's dogshit".
In case it all just comes from training data, "one shotting" a game would be more comparable to "git pull" and changing some assets than "generating code".
I'm not saying this is how it works, I'm trivializing LLMs with this statement, but when I see someone on linkedin excited about generating checkers and chess my first thought is "you could have done that with git pull for the past 20 years".
I might have misunderstood as english is not my native language but the 100% doesn't sit right with me in the original sentence.
In general I feel people downplay the effects of luck by a lot. My thinking is that the effort is everything but meaningless, in fact it's probably the only thing you can control.
From a technology perspective LLMs are absolutely bonkers, blows my mind it works as well as it does.
From a programmer perspective, I'm starting to like it less and less. It's useful for sure, but doesn't really live up to the hype. In many ways it's the opposite, my bet is still that programmers will be in high demand in the not so distant future after all of this settles.
> while the additional realism would be essentially imperceptible to the player
Personally for me this is the relevant part.
I can ofc imagine some niche games like Kerbal Space Program with complete realism, but I'm not convinced it makes it more enjoyable to play. Would be interesting to see for sure.
If you ask an AWS consultant what the best solution for your problem is, don't be surprised if the answer is AWS.