Any time someone posts that LLMs are just the next abstraction level to get used to, they instantly reveal themselves to be an impostor.
All abstraction layers are predictable and repeatable when used correctly.
You specify something in the language of the abstraction, and get a result that is precisely understood by the rules and requirements of the abstraction.
Only those who programmed by trial and error before AI do not see a difference. That's because they treated their compilers as mysterious AI, and must massaged their programs into working. In other words, they were already accustomed to a kind of prompt engineering.
Thank you. I think that's a good explanation for much of the phenomena and your insight would have strengthened my post. I think you're probably right about where many of the people who see it that way are coming from. But not all of them...
Comments
Any time someone posts that LLMs are just the next abstraction level to get used to, they instantly reveal themselves to be an impostor.
All abstraction layers are predictable and repeatable when used correctly.
You specify something in the language of the abstraction, and get a result that is precisely understood by the rules and requirements of the abstraction.
Only those who programmed by trial and error before AI do not see a difference. That's because they treated their compilers as mysterious AI, and must massaged their programs into working. In other words, they were already accustomed to a kind of prompt engineering.
Thank you. I think that's a good explanation for much of the phenomena and your insight would have strengthened my post. I think you're probably right about where many of the people who see it that way are coming from. But not all of them...