[Game_Ender]

I am not sure there is too much value for this article for the typical hacker news conversation on LLM based tooling. Here we generally focus on if the tooling is effective, and can it be used make software quicker or more cheaply. The problem is the author is opposed using the cutting edge models on privacy and ethics grounds. So they say:

> I have woefully little experience with these tools.

> I do not want to be using the cloud versions of these models with their potentially hideous energy demands; I’d like to use a local model. But there is obviously not a nicely composed way to use local models like this.

> The models and tools that people are raving about are the big, expensive, harmful ones. If I proved to myself yet again that a small model with bad tools was unpleasant to use, I wouldn’t really be addressing my opponents’ views.

Then without having any real practical experience with the cutting edge tooling they predict:

> As I have written about before, I believe the mania will end. There will then be a crash, and a “winter”. But, as I may not have stressed sufficiently, this crash will be the biggest of its kind — so big, that it is arguably not of a kind at all. The level of investment in these technologies is bananas and the possibility that the investors will recoup their investment seems close to zero.

I think a more accurate take is this will be like self driving, huge investments, many more losers thank winners, and it will take longer than all the boosters think. But in the end we did get actual self driving cars, but this time it's with LLMs it is something that anyone can use by clicking a link vs. waiting for lots of cars to be built and deployed.

[recursive]

> Here we generally focus on if the tooling is effective

That's one of the things we sometimes focus on.

> But in the end we did get actual self driving cars

Kind of. Barely. You still can't buy a car without a steering wheel. If they were self-driving, that would be a waste of space and resources.