zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I’d love to see the authors of effusive praise of generative AI like this provide the proof of the unlimited powers of their tools in code. If GAI (or agents, or whatever comes next …) is so effective it should be quite simple to prove that by creating an AI only company and in short order producing huge amounts of serviceable code to do useful things. So far I’ve seen no sign of this, and the best use case seems to be generating text or artwork which fools humans into thinking it has coherent meaning as our minds love to fill gaps and spot patterns even where there are none. It’s also pretty good at reproducing things it has seen with variations - that can be useful.

So far in my experience watching small to medium sized companies try to use it for real work, it has been occasionally useful for exploring apis, odd bits of knowledge etc, but overall wasted more time than it has saved. I see very few signs of progress.

The time has come for llm users to put up or shut up - if it’s so great, stop telling us and show and use the code it generated on its own.

>>grey-a+ba
What kind of proof are you looking for here, exactly? Lots of businesses are successfully using AI... There are many anecdotes of this, which you can read here, or even in the article you commented on.

What else are you looking for?

>>sander+nb
What do you mean by “successfully using AI”, do you just mean some employee used it and found it helpful at some stage of their dev process, e.g. in lieu of search engines or existing codegen tooling?

Are there any examples of businesses deploying production-ready, nontrivial code changes without a human spending a comparable (or much greater) amount of time as they’d have needed to with the existing SOTA dev tooling outside of LLMs?

That’s my interpretation of the question at hand. In my experience, LLMs have been very useful for developers who don’t know where to start on a particular task, or need to generate some trivial boilerplate code. But on nearly every occasion of the former, the code/scripts need to be heavily audited and revised by an experienced engineer before it’s ready to deploy for real.

>>frank_+8f
Yeah, I should have posted the first version of my post, pointing out that the problem with this demand for proof (as is often the case) devolves into boring definitional questions.

I don't understand why you think "the code needs to be audited and revised" is a failure.

Nothing in the OP relies on it being possible for LLMs to build and deploy software unsupervised. It really seems like a non sequitur to me, to ask for proof of this.