7 ms·
I program as a hobby, personal projects because I can. I recently set up a local llm to see what the fuss is about and other than the few ringer solutions my e
by nik282000 29d ago
I program as a hobby, personal projects because I can.
I recently set up a local llm to see what the fuss is about and other than the few ringer solutions my experience is as you described. 2min promping, 5min waiting, 3hrs debugging or just doing it myself.
I am very likely doing it wrong, and it does speed up some aspects, but I wouldn't say I trust llm code any more than my own. Until it runs and throws an error, the llm is 100% confident that it has written perfect code.
- viccis 29d agoI don't think setting up a local LLM is a reasonable way to get a good idea of how enterprises are using this stuff.
- TingPing 29d agoLocal llms aren’t super exciting unfortunately.
- duskdozer 29d agoNeither are proprietary blackbox systems unfortunately.
- jdm2212 29d agoTry using Fable and report back. Local LLM is to Fable as Little Tike car is to a Porsche.
- anon7000 29d agoA normal agentic loop will have the agent using a type system and basic tests to do some basic validation of changes. A good agentic loop would give the agent a very easy way to verify if it’s on the right track. I think agents are better than many humans at writing error free code (runtime errors, not bugs. The code could still be buggy or incorrect.)
- hypfer 29d agoFundamentally though, an agent cannot produce great code, because great code requires intent, which is the opposite of the statistical mean. You will get a solution that works with a proper workflow, but you won't get one that scales or would be truly maintainable. Which is also what you get with random midwit drive-by contributors, but faster. I'll give it that.
- prolly97 29d agoIf you built a task management system, you'd have very different code bases depending on whether it's for internal use at a mid-size development org or as a SaaS. So I wonder whether, in your experience, the results you've seen, could have improved by providing sufficient context? - or what context was given. I.e. if you have the agent that same context, as one of your colleagues would have/require to solve a problem.
- hypfer 29d ago"You're holding it wrong" You've missed my point. I didn't dismiss agents. I did dismiss the industry. I don't need to add more context to a statement that operates on a layer above where context injection would influence it. It is a conceptual impossibility. Not a technical roadblock.
- tuyiown 29d ago> because great code requires intent If can put properly engineered intent in the prompt that is verifiable, it works wonders. Anything that can defaults to the llm doing its way, you're right, it just can't converge to good, not with proper constraints.
- jolaflow 29d ago[flagged]
- hypfer 29d agoDo you people ever think of anything else other than pitching your next SaaS startup thing? Holy crap. Does your home have mirrors?
- nightmunnas 29d agoModels that run on (average) consumer hardware are not even close to comparable to models like Fable or Sol. Its like comparing an ant to the largest dinosaur.
- Frost1x 29d agoYou don’t even have to go that far, recent Opus models are quite impressive.