Yeah it’s all trade offs. If it means I get to where I want to be faster, even if it’s imperfect, so be it.
Humans aren’t without flaws; prior to coding assistants, I’ve lost count of the times my PM telling me to rush things at the expense of engineering rigor. We validate or falsify the need for a feature sooner and move on to other things. Sometimes it works sometimes a bug blows up in our faces, but things still chug along.
This point will become increasingly moot as AI gets better at generating good code, and faster, too.
Amazing. Would be cool to see agents end up trading at varrock bank like during the old days. Sort of a facebook/moltbook equivalent - wonder how genuine it would feel
Please try running some bots and join the discord! Totally agree that we should add communication channels for the bots, potentially a bbs or global chat?
Imagine throwing orders of magnitude more of compute at things - we may have things like a monte carlo tree search for LLM outputs using an LLMJudge that prunes the tree.
+ we can continuously let a LLM monitor our log files and alert/propose/fix issues 24/7. If intelligence becomes cheap enough this would be an enormous market.
Having a LLM run as "fact checker" /coach for everything that you write also would be a great addition.
On the one hand it is a wholesome article. On the other hand - so much wasted potential of people squeezing out the last bits when competing. Nash equilibria can suck
reply