alt Hacker NewsFor now, I can imagine a not too distant future where this is largely untrue.
LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs?
At some point you stopped needing to understand the layer down because the layer you were on became so good. Yes there are always corner cases, but for the vast majority of developers/engineers out there, staying at your layer was enough to make a career out of it once your layer hit a certain maturity.
Replies
They aren't because we're not committing prompts. The analogous would be compiling to and then committing unmaintainable assembly when the higher level language, which is a deterministic compiler, already exists
> LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs
The what is the semantic mapping between <some lang> and LLMs?
I know the semantic mapping between maching code and assembly (some light weight syntax manipulation and macros). I know the one between assembly and C (the C abstract machine, which is mostly about the stack and whatever call/ret instructions pair). I know the one between C and something like python (not so much different than the one between C and assembly in mechanism).
Please talk about how you go from A LLM prompt to a piece of code in Python and guarantee the intent remains unchanged.
There is a always going to be the gap of what you can do with LLMs if you know how to code vs if you don’t
There's an increasing amount of jobs where the job role is analyst but you're just feeding the ai with whatever the task assigned to you was. These are not software jobs but are business jobs. Like User acceptance testing quality assurance aka bureaucracy