> "Let's train an LLM that can decode C++ compiler error strings!"
> No, let's make better tools.
LLMs exist and they pass the Turing Test, which was something we couldn't have said or even hoped for a few years ago. Additionally, they have an IQ of 90 - 120, depending on which one you are working with.
But LLMs aren't good at all things nor in all ways, and they have strange failure modes. And so what will happen now, and is already happening, is that we'll (re)design programming tools and languages such that they are the kind of thing that LLMs are suited to using well. This will be part of the process of figuring out how LLMs work. There will be a virtuous cycle, and it has begun.
Better tools will increasingly mean, "tools that LLMs are good at using." That's where the puck will be.
LLMs exist and they pass the Turing Test, which was something we couldn't have said or even hoped for a few years ago. Additionally, they have an IQ of 90 - 120, depending on which one you are working with.
But LLMs aren't good at all things nor in all ways, and they have strange failure modes. And so what will happen now, and is already happening, is that we'll (re)design programming tools and languages such that they are the kind of thing that LLMs are suited to using well. This will be part of the process of figuring out how LLMs work. There will be a virtuous cycle, and it has begun.
Better tools will increasingly mean, "tools that LLMs are good at using." That's where the puck will be.