The title of the paper itself is odd. "LLM" is an abstract computation that's performed on some substrate, could be GPUs, could be a piece of paper, could je Minecraft, could be AoE, or could be all of them together.
That's not a property of LLMs thought, that's a trivial property related to turing completeness. I don't get what LLMs have to do with this - if LLMs have anthropomorphic properties, so does AoEII, duh, it's called emergence
Anthropic, if you're reading this: I'm a developer trying to figure out LLMs, I use them 8h per day to do my work. Claude Desktop is a missing piece I don't have access to because I'm only on Linux! I'm happy with a simple AppImage.
What's with these journals all being so hostile? I remember years ago i tried to delete my Washington Post account - there was no button anywhere in the settings menu though, only: text if you want your data deleted. I texted them, they asked back, do you live in a GDPR region? I said no, they replied well tough luck. Insane
I understand that this is frustrating for people who mostly write thoughtful emails. But personally I use gmail for exactly the following things: account recovery, system notifications, and b2b email threads. For the latter, I really couldn't care less about form or shape. It's a tool to an end, to get a point across. I found the auto writing stuff pretty useless so far (suggestions change the intended tone or even meaning of the email) but summaries are very useful to get a grip what happened in a larger thread which I should only know the gist of anyway.
I might be in the minority but to me email is an annoying requirement to reach out to people, and that is not due to the AI tools, it's due to: thread management, the horrible noise of unasked for newsletter, and system messages and updates I theoretically do care about but that are just inconsistently formatted and badly listed. I welcome AI giving me a better overview over what's going on than what I myself have.
It can be discussed but not like this. The tone is problematic and results in the reaction. You're basically saying: I found a few bugs and I saw that you use tool X, thus you're now not worthy of maintaining this software without my supervision. Which is tiring if the initial report doesn't even show what exactly was wrong, or if something was wrong. It's just a feeling of: something doesn't work for me; I don't like AI tools; I see you're using AI tools; therefore I now tell you that you're not capable of maintaining this package, and I have to intervene. Such a stark comment must be done on more than just vibes and feelings.
Yes, reliability plummeting is valuable feedback, but it should be framed as such, and not attack the maintainers descision to use agentic tools to write code, and especially not in that high nose way with an undertone of: What you're doing is obviously wrong, did you even think?? Everyone here knows it, are you stupid?
And the maintainer can then choose to use that feedback to incorporate it into the workflow, on their own time. If they so choose (which I'm sure they will, unless they get burnt by the community right now).
I agree, if I was the maintainer this would be an extremely tiring community feedback.
People coming in "I encountered a bug, I don't know what the bug is but I thought about it for a second and it's obviously your descision to do xyz".
As a maintainer, what are you supposed to do? It's not more useful than a ticket "somethings wrong idk what" which is useless enough to close without further action. But it puts the burden on the maintainer to a) figure out what's wrong based on basically no data whatsoever, then b) if they find it out figure out why then c), and that's the tiring part, review their process and create a defense for their approach, or admit that that thing that random user felt after trying out your software for 10 minutes is right, and that you were what? stupid to even think this would ever work? They never asked for any of this, and they're already doing so much work for free.
If the rsync maintainer reads this: You're doing incredible work and humanity appreciates your obviously incredibly competence in it, and not everyone feels the way these people do.
Moving to agentic workflows is obviously the right step and it already provides enough benefits to do it already. And mistakes are bound to happen (if the issue is even a mistake!) and there will always be people who cannot comprehend the power of agents and who will point the finger saying "I know it from the start! I've worked with these tools for 2 hours already and I can see they don't work! Idk why you think they do!". They're wrong. But mistakes will happen that otherwise wouldn't have - but that's the learning experience.
They're not negated, smarter is smarter, but you have to reach deeper in your pocket. I think this will happen more and more - the smartest models get more expensive. But it won't matter - the current models we have today will get cheaper and can still be used for what they're used today.
I would take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. I don't really use them. What's it supposed to tell me? "5% smarter", what does that mean? My experience will differ. Just try it!
I doubt Anthropic internally sets as a goal to improve this or that benchmark - it's just a way to visualize progress. They probably have much more complex metrics internally.
I can tell you my experience as a js package dev, last tried a few weeks ago. We're building an npm package that's supposed to run on both node.js, deno & bun & the web.
This is an annoying to do for exactly two platforms: node.js, and deno.
node.js bcs it requires a workaround whenever something networking comes in: fetch doesn't work the same. So you structure you're code around having a node.js workaround. Same story for some other APIs. But you can test if itn works!
Deno is more annoying, you just can't test your package with deno before publishing. Before we released to npm, we installed a tar file and sent those around for testing. Works in node, in vite (node, for browser), works in bun, like a charm. Doesn't work with deno unless you switch to package.json, and you use exactly the subset of the spec that deno supports. You can't "deno install xyz.tar", you have to use npm for that (inserts a single line into package.json), THEN you can use deno to execute. No docs, no hint, just trial & error.
Even more annoyingly, npm & bun both offer 'link': in package repo, call npm/bun link, in the test repo do npm/bun link @yourpackage, and that's it, it's installed. Creates a dyn link to the source's build dir so you can rebuild without packing or sending tars or anything like that, you just build in your package dir and the test project is immediately updated.
Deno doesn't have that. What's worse, they don't tell you they don't have that. Also basically no error messages. It just fails in weird ways. Spent hours trying to do it. Now I just publish without testing for deno and wait for bug reports.
So out of the three: bun just works. That's it. Better than any platform. It just works, and it has a nicer CLI & nicer error messages, and it's faster on startup. It has the web api and the node api (i think) and its own api that's very nice as well, nicer than e.g. node. And e.g. if you run bun link, it tells you exactly what happened: this is what just happened, this is what you have to do to use it elsewhere. Node doesn't have that!
I think deno recognized bun's strategy of using npm dev's backbone as being the better call - that's why they're now slowly introducing node.js features, even though that goes against their original USP.
I know and I agree. It sounds incredibly arrogant but it's frankly is a bid sad to see how much HN is lagging behind AI adaption. It's been 90% noise over the last 3-6 months about problems that aren't truly problems if you really look hard at what AI is capable to do already today. It's mostly ppl & process problems. I could post a comment like the one above below almost every article on AI. But it is what it is. It's an opportunity for anyone who doesn't bite into the cynical tone here for sure.
This article assumes that AI only has an impact on the development phase which is certainly not true. It can speed up every part of the step. Including ideation, legal, documentation, development, and deployment.
Ideation: Throw ideas back & forth, cross reference with knowledge bases, generate design documents. Documentation: Generate large parts of docs. Development: Clear. Deployment: Generate deployment manifests, tooling around testing, knowledge around cloud platforms.
Every single step can be done better & faster with AI. Not all of them, but a lot.
Even development. Yes some part of your job involves understanding the problem better than anyone & making solutions. But some parts are also purely chore. If you know you keed a button doing X, then designing that button, placing it, figuring out edge cases with hover & press states, connecting to the backend etc - this is chore that can be skipped. Same principle applies to almost all steps.
Enforcement is secondary and is allowed to take weeks / months / never at all if nobody reads the paper. It's about being able to ban if an issue arrises; not about keeping the database strictly clean.
I agree with everything you said, it's great that they're trying to detach from US IT providers & alternative, and I do think Europe is doing a lot things better than the US.
But there's nothing like AWS, Google Cloud, facebook, Azure, ChatGPT, Tesla, etc etc the list goes on and is very long, in Europe. They're switching way too late. Why did it not happen before? Why do we have very limited IT providers, for example? Due to the culture and regulation that doesn't incentivize it sufficiently.
I'm European too btw and live in the EU and I'm happy about a lot of things we have that the US doesn't, I'm just personally worried that we're setting priorities wrong. Having a chill life in the park is good in the ideal it's just detached from what's needed to make a state run; and it will end in the EU having even less power that is has now, resulting in fewer moral values being carried into the world.
Looking at it from Europe, this definitely also happens. It depends on the situation. I know of ppl who were kept bcs the parting was in good faith (which was less a firing and more an agreement that parting is in everyone's interest), but I also know of ppl who had their access revoked before firing bcs it wasn't. The latter had unilateral system access as well, which added to it. It's not about humane or inhumane, it's about risk. The 3-6 months being nice is also a fairytale that I have only ever heard in a positive light from employees who are not particularly ambitious or awake or in any way satisfied with their jobs or the prospect of a future job. On the other hand from the perspective of employers it's consistently hard to effectively restructure, it's expensice and awkward to have to pretend to want to keep someone around that you or they don't want around.
It's just one of these rules that unfortunately in Europe allow people to view life purely as the time between jobs. I'd never tell that to someone's face but it's simply a fact that the world stops of people don't work and no matter what the ideal world looks like in your dreams, working is the only real way forward for anything. It's part of the reason why Europe is falling behind on everything.
Perfectly possible IME, it just requires more time. Even if you understand all the (important) parts of your code and validate it, Ai still helps with productivity a lot. It's just not as fast as blindly vibe coding - not at first at least. Agents on their own without checks, and superficial prompts without understanding, result in agents either introducing bugs, or if you have an appropriate test harness, painfully slow, in my experience. It requires skill to use an agent effectively.
I think there's a real space there, and a lot of what e.g. nurses and doctors do is talking to humans, and that won't go away.
But two facts are also true: a) diagnosis itself can be automated. A lot of what goes on between you having an achy belly and you getting diagnosed with x y or z is happening outside of a direct interaction with you - all of that can be augmented with AI. And b), the human interaction part is lacking a great deal in most societies. Homeopathy and a lot of alternative medicine from what I can see has its footing in society simply because they're better at talking to people. AI could also help with that, both in direct communication with humans, but also in simply making a lot of processes a lot cheaper, and maybe e.g. making the required education to become a human facing medicinal professional less of a hurdle. Diagnosis becomes cheaper & easier -> more time to actually talk to patients, and more diagnosises made with higher accuracy.
Not with you, just a little frustrated with the general vibe and tone in hackernews :) Nad it's not anyone's fault either everyone is just doing their best to follow what's happening. But I think hackernews is currently way off base when it comes to what's really happening, which is kinda sad considering it use to be "the place" to see what's currently going on. The AI revolution is here, anyone that's cussing about claude code max for 100/month getting rate limited doesn't understand it's already with 2k/month, everyone who's upset that github is focussing on copilot doesn't understand that this is the single modt important product they have to jump on asap or geit their lunch eaten by base44, cursor, linear etc.
I like to talk trash about Microsoft as much as anyone, they made insanely bad product descisions in the past (copilot in ms word is one of many) but this is not one of them.
Why is it a problem with Githubs infrastructure!? Bcs any website on the planet will struggle when they have to fulfill 30x capacity within 1-2y, no matter which tech stack they're built on, including federated networks. I'm not sure why you're throwikg Copilot in there, you don't like it?
Github as we know it is gone, forever, it will never come back, except for niche hobby clones with .001% capacity that nobody will use. Agents are re-defining what software engineering means, they already have, right now,and are continuikg to do so, it's just that hackernews is lagging 6 months behind for some reason.
That's not a property of LLMs thought, that's a trivial property related to turing completeness. I don't get what LLMs have to do with this - if LLMs have anthropomorphic properties, so does AoEII, duh, it's called emergence