zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
>If you were trying and failing to use an LLM for code 6 months ago †, you’re not doing what most serious LLM-assisted coders are doing.

Here’s the thing from the skeptic perspective: This statement keeps getting made on a rolling basis. 6 months ago if I wasn’t using the life-changing, newest LLM at the time, I was also doing it wrong and being a luddite.

It creates a never ending treadmill of boy-who-cried-LLM. Why should I believe anything outlined in the article is transformative now when all the same vague claims about productivity increases were being made about the LLMs from 6 months ago which we now all agree are bad?

I don’t really know what would actually unseat this epistemic prior at this point for me.

In six months, I predict the author will again think the LLM products of 6 month ago (now) were actually not very useful and didn’t live up to the hype.

>>davidc+K8
An exponential curve looks locally the same at all points in time. For a very long period of time, computers were always vastly better than they were a year ago, and that wasn't because the computer you'd bought the year before was junk.

Consider that what you're reacting to is a symptom of genuine, rapid progress.

>>idlewo+gr

  > An exponential curve looks locally the same at all points in time

This is true for any curve...

If your curve is continuous, it is locally linear.

There's no use in talking about the curve being locally similar without the context of your window. Without the window you can't differentiate an exponential from a sigmoid from a linear function.

Let's be careful with naive approximations. We don't know which direction things are going and we definitely shouldn't assume "best case scenario"

>>godels+Bv
A curve isn't necessarily locally linear if it's continuous. Take f(x) = |x|, for example.

>>sfpott+Tv
|x| is piece wise continuous, not absolutely continuous