This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wake up, babe, new OpenAI frontier model just dropped.
Well, you can’t actually use it yet. But the benchmarks scores are a dramatic leap up.. Perhaps most strikingly, o3 does VERY well on one of the most important and influential benchmarks, the ARC AGI challenge, getting 87% accuracy compared to just 32% from o1. Creator of the challenge François Chollet seems very impressed.
What does all this mean? My view is that this confirms we’re near the end-zone. We shouldn’t expect achieving human-level intelligence to be hard in the first place, given all the additional constraints evolution had to endure in building us (metabolic costs of neurons, infant skull size vs size of the birth canal, etc.). Since we hit the forcing-economy stage with AI sometime in the late 2010s, ever greater amounts of human capital and compute have been dedicated to the problem, so we shouldn’t be surprised. My mood is well captured by this reflection on Twitter from OpenAI researcher Nick Cammarata:
Apparently this AI is ranked as the 175th best coder on Earth. I think we’ve reached the point, where anyone working in software needs to either pivot to developing AIs themselves or else look for an exit strategy. It looks like humans developing “apps”, websites and other traditional software development has 1-3 years before they’re in a similar position to horse and buggy drivers in 1920.
Considering that people already thought LLMs could write code well (they cannot in fact write code well), I'm not holding my breath that they are right this time either. We'll see.
My brother in Christ, the 174th best coder on Earth is literally an LLM.
What is your theory on why that LLM is not working at OpenAI and creating a better version of itself? Can that only be done by the 173rd best coder on Earth?
... why do you think LLMs are not meaningfully increasing developer productivity ar openai? Lots of developers use copilot. Copilot can use o1.
If his claim was correct, LLM's wouldn't be a tool that help OpenAI developers boost their productivity, LLM's would literally be writing better and better versions of themselves, with no human intervention.
Stackoverflow is better than most programmers at answering any particular programming question, and yet stackoverflow cannot entirely replace development teams, because it cannot do things like "ask clarifying questions to stakeholders and expect that those questions will actually be answered". Similarly, an LLM does not expose the same interface as a human, and does not have the same affordances a human has.
And that's why we don't call Stack Overflow things like "the 175th best coder on Earth".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it is ranked as 175th in a specific ranking. That is with access to all analysis, answers of this existing questions. Solving question is distinctively easier if you seen the answer.
Make no mistake, LLM are much better at coding than I would predict 10 years ago. Decade ago I would laugh at anyone predicting such progress, and in fact I mocked any idea of AI generating code that is worth looking at. And trawling internet for such solutions is extremely powerful and useful. And ability to (sometimes) adapt existing code to novel situation still feels like magic.
But it is distinctively worse at handling novel situations and taking any context into account. Much worse than such ranking suggest. Leaving aside all cheating of benchmarks and overfitting and Goodhart's law and all such traps.
If this AI would be really 174th best coder on Earth then they would be already releasing profitable software written by it. Instead, they release PR stuff. I wonder why? Maybe at actual coding it is not so great?
More options
Context Copy link
My brother in Christ, up until now (can't speak for this one) LLMs frequently get things wrong (because they don't actually understand anything) and can't learn to do better (because they don't actually understand anything). That's useless. Hell, it's worse than useless - it's actively harmful.
Perhaps this new one has surpassed the limitations of prior models before it, but I have my doubts. And given that people have been completely driven by hype about LLMs and persistently do not even see the shortcomings, saying it's "the 174th best coder on earth" means very little. How do I know that people aren't just giving into hype and using bad metrics to judge the new model just as they did the old?
More options
Context Copy link
That tweet you linked does not mean what you say it means.
Competitive programming is something that fits LLM's much better than regular programming. The problems are well defined, short and the internet is filled with examples to learn from. So to say that it equals regular programming is not accurate at all.
Are LLM's decent (and getting better) at regular programming? Yes, especially combined with an experienced programmer dealing with something novel (to the programmer, but not the programming community at large), in roughly the same way (but better) that stackoverflow helps one get up to speed with a topic. In the hands of a novice programmer chaos occurs, which might not be bad if it leads to the programmer learning. But humans are lazy.
Will LLM's replace programmers? Who knows, but given my experience working with them, they struggle with anything that is not well documented on the internet very quickly. Which is sad, because I enjoy programming with them a lot.
Another thing to add is that I think the low hanging fruit is currently being picked dry. First it was increasing training for as long as it scaled (gpt4), then it was run time improvements on the model (have it re-read it's own output and sanity check it, increasing the cost of a query by a lot). I'm sure that there are more improvements on the way but like most 'AI' stuff, the early improvements are usually the easiest. So saying that programming is dead in X amount of years because "lllllook at all this progress!!!" is way too reactive.
More options
Context Copy link
Says who? What’s the evidence? I see these claims but they don’t seem backed up by reality. If they are so great, why haven’t we practically fired all coders?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link