GPT 3.0 couldn’t create gta 6 using a single prompt therefore all future models are bad. /s
Maybe get out of your cave and test it yourself instead of coping in denial.
The problem is that every time, in the moment, people advocate and then when it comes up short, come back with “Oh, you did XYZ 3.2? Yeah that’s busted, 3.3 can really do it” and rinse and repeat and it’s hard to take that argument credibly when it’s a treadmill of dissing yesterday’s tech but swearing today’s is different.
The current best of breed I have very limited exposure to (too rich for my blood), but it didn’t seem overwhelmingly a slam dunk in my interaction. Incremental value going from more modest models to those don’t seem to justify the price tag.
And every developer that is merely curating fully agentic workflow I have dealt with has pretty shit functionality and no idea what the hell they are doing. Whatever the rhetoric is, the results are just utter shit. Somewhat better if the problem domain can be infinitely retried without consequence with results that can be perfectly verified to let it drive eternal retries (while burning through token budget), but generally I just see pretty shit software.
On the other hand, a lot of these groups that I say has pretty shit AI software formerly had pretty shit normal software. Problem being clueless management now thinking they must be smart because they say things more aligned to the AI hype.
I have tinkered with it, and I’ve also had to deal with coworkers using it. I have actual work to do instead of playing with toys that make my job harder.
That may be your experience but it’s clearly the exception. Every developer i know doesn’t even use ide anymore and have not written a line of code for months. Most of us hate it and prefer we went back to the old ways of manually typing code, but sadly the llms won’t go back in the bottle. You are in the denial stage and it’s ok, we were all there.
You must’ve been living in a cave. Just go to any social media, youtube, even reddit and look for programming topic. Everyone claims the same, people don’t write code manually anymore.
A number of people have shared their experience with you and you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that your assertion of universal slopping it up as reality is not utterly universal.
The content on Internet will invariably biased towards the novelty. Between that bias and enormous marketing spin and the most self important people gravitating towards it, it’s an expected reality. One that will be applicable to some scenarios.
Content saying that for some situations, the existing methods remain best isn’t going to light the world on fire. Also, tech folks tend to be more shy about “not getting” a seemingly great new tech.
In terms of how much it applies to an individual situation, it’s too nuanced to really make a universal judgement. But in my local circle where I can grasp the nuance, the teams that have gone all in on deeply agentic are teams that already were kind of crappy.
Dude, come on - what are you actually trying to accomplish here? All you’re doing is throwing a tantrum because people don’t agree with you, and that’s pretty unpleasant behavior.
Nothing you’ve said can even be commented on with facts and logic - and my goal isn’t to debate you, but to point out that you’re either wasting your time or aren’t terribly good at trolling.
I don’t think you understand how that term works, and you cannot simply throw it out like a pokemon and hope it does the work for you. Questioning someone’s motivations is not in itself an ad-hominem, nor is describing your behavior as unpleasant.
GPT 3.0 couldn’t create gta 6 using a single prompt therefore all future models are bad. /s Maybe get out of your cave and test it yourself instead of coping in denial.
The problem is that every time, in the moment, people advocate and then when it comes up short, come back with “Oh, you did XYZ 3.2? Yeah that’s busted, 3.3 can really do it” and rinse and repeat and it’s hard to take that argument credibly when it’s a treadmill of dissing yesterday’s tech but swearing today’s is different.
The current best of breed I have very limited exposure to (too rich for my blood), but it didn’t seem overwhelmingly a slam dunk in my interaction. Incremental value going from more modest models to those don’t seem to justify the price tag.
And every developer that is merely curating fully agentic workflow I have dealt with has pretty shit functionality and no idea what the hell they are doing. Whatever the rhetoric is, the results are just utter shit. Somewhat better if the problem domain can be infinitely retried without consequence with results that can be perfectly verified to let it drive eternal retries (while burning through token budget), but generally I just see pretty shit software.
On the other hand, a lot of these groups that I say has pretty shit AI software formerly had pretty shit normal software. Problem being clueless management now thinking they must be smart because they say things more aligned to the AI hype.
Every technology we have today started as being barely usable to “pretty good” across it’s lifespan. Why would you think llms are different ?
I have tinkered with it, and I’ve also had to deal with coworkers using it. I have actual work to do instead of playing with toys that make my job harder.
That may be your experience but it’s clearly the exception. Every developer i know doesn’t even use ide anymore and have not written a line of code for months. Most of us hate it and prefer we went back to the old ways of manually typing code, but sadly the llms won’t go back in the bottle. You are in the denial stage and it’s ok, we were all there.
Perhaps your experience is the exception?
You must’ve been living in a cave. Just go to any social media, youtube, even reddit and look for programming topic. Everyone claims the same, people don’t write code manually anymore.
A number of people have shared their experience with you and you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that your assertion of universal slopping it up as reality is not utterly universal.
It’s kinda hard to acknowledge something when every single content I’ve seen in last couple of months claims the opposite.
The content on Internet will invariably biased towards the novelty. Between that bias and enormous marketing spin and the most self important people gravitating towards it, it’s an expected reality. One that will be applicable to some scenarios.
Content saying that for some situations, the existing methods remain best isn’t going to light the world on fire. Also, tech folks tend to be more shy about “not getting” a seemingly great new tech.
In terms of how much it applies to an individual situation, it’s too nuanced to really make a universal judgement. But in my local circle where I can grasp the nuance, the teams that have gone all in on deeply agentic are teams that already were kind of crappy.
Almost everyone on lemmy DOES live in a cave. They willfully avoid and actively hate new technology.
(Dude you’ve been trying the “smug condescension” thing for like two hours and nobody’s playing along, give it up already it’s tedious)
Great counter-argument full of logic and rich of facts.
You’re not exactly giving me much to work with - anecdotal evidence is not fact, and rhetoric is not logic.
Dude, come on - what are you actually trying to accomplish here? All you’re doing is throwing a tantrum because people don’t agree with you, and that’s pretty unpleasant behavior.
Arguing with facts is now a tantrum ? Please refrain from ad hominems if you cannot argue honestly.
… Huh. So you don’t really have a goal here beyond just offering up bait?
Unlike you, I try to argue with facts, not with logical fallacies.
Nothing you’ve said can even be commented on with facts and logic - and my goal isn’t to debate you, but to point out that you’re either wasting your time or aren’t terribly good at trolling.
Yet another ad hominem. Since you cannot argue honestly shall block you.
I don’t think you understand how that term works, and you cannot simply throw it out like a pokemon and hope it does the work for you. Questioning someone’s motivations is not in itself an ad-hominem, nor is describing your behavior as unpleasant.