zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
One thing that I find truly amazing is just the simple fact that you can now be fuzzy with the input you give a computer, and get something meaningful in return. Like, as someone who grew up learning to code in the 90s it always seemed like science fiction that we'd get to a point where you could give a computer some vague human level instructions and get it more or less do what you want.

>>gdubs+Z
The other side of the coin is that if you give it a precise input, it will fuzzily interpret it as something else that is easier to solve.

>>progva+12
It will, or it might? Because if every time you use an LLM is misinterprets your input as something easier to solve, you might want to brush up on the fundamentals of the tool

(I see some people are quite upset with the idea of having to mean what you say, but that's something that serves you well when interacting with people, LLMs, and even when programming computers.)

>>Booris+F2
Might, of course. And in my experience it's what happens most times I ask a LLM to do something I can't trivially do myself.

>>progva+O3
I find this very very much depends on the model and instructions you give the llm. Also you can use other instructions to check the output and have it try again. Definitely with larger codebases it struggles but the power is there.

My favorite instruction is using component A as an example make component B