Wow.
2000x worse, huh?
I mean... I'm impressed that it runs, passes unti tests, and 'works', but is also that much worse.
That's a kind of achievement.
Not a useful kind, but... impressively bad.
Wow.
2000x worse, huh?
I mean... I'm impressed that it runs, passes unti tests, and 'works', but is also that much worse.
That's a kind of achievement.
Not a useful kind, but... impressively bad.
Reminds me of the Claude fluff article that mentions that reverts have only increased 0.04%.
It made big noise that the number of Pull Requests has doubled though.
Logically because you have one PR from an LLM, then another by a human to fix the LLM slop.
Tbh I see myself using AI for shits and giggles. (nothing helpful)
I try not to use it alot due to the ethics it comes with it.
In fairness to LLMs, (which I run locally) I've been able to use them for like, bits of code that are roughly 200 lines or less.
Or like, feed it a code base and say hey, make sure all the comments are formatted the same way.
But uh, for... trying to engineer an entire system?
Nope nope nope, they get very confused, very fast, as overall conplexity increases.
@rimu How does it get worse at all?! SQLite has quite a few vtables, and Rust has monomorphisation, so it should be possible to do better on benchmarks.
(I have occasionally thought about rewriting SQLite in Rust before regaining my senses.)
There are some things it can do well, like collecting / organizing certain data out of large documents. Sort of like a recursive-multi-google operation
@rimu "Fake it 'till you make it" does not work with artefacts. It may help you form habits, but if it's not your attitude that is the problem, but rather the tool, then "Fake it 'till you make it" *will lead to the emperors new clothes* .
all 18 comments