zlacker

It can code in an autocomplete sense. In the serious sense, if we don’t distinguish between code and thought, it can’t.

Observe that modern coding agents rely heavily on heuristics. LLM excels at training datasets, at analyzing existing knowledge, but it can’t generate new knowledge on the same scale, its thinking (a process of identification and integration) is severely limited on the conscious level (context window), where being rational is most valuable.

Because it doesn’t have volition, it cannot choose to be logical and not irrational, it cannot commit to attaining the full non-contradictory awareness of reality. That’s why I said “never.”

>>kalter+(OP)
Some of that is true, sure, but nobody who claims LLMs can code and reason about problems is claiming that they operate like humans. Can you give concrete examples of actual specific coding tasks that LLMs can’t do and never will be able to do as a consequence of all that?

>>librar+31
I think it can solve about any leetcode problem. I don’t think it can build an enterprise-grade system. It can be trained on an exiting one but these systems are not closed and no past knowledge seems to predict the future.

That’s not very specific but I don’t have another answer.

>>kalter+(OP)
> It can code in an autocomplete sense.

I just (right before hopping on HN) finished up a session where an agent rewrote 3000 lines of custom tests. If you know of any "autocomplete" that can do something similar, let me know. Otherwise, I think saying LLMs are "autocomplete" doesn't make a lot of sense.

>>johnfn+T1
That’s impressive. I don’t object to the fact that they make humans phenomenally productive. But “they code and think” makes me cringe. Maybe I’m confusing lexicon differences for philosophic battles.