[w4yai]

Nothing new. Whenever a new layer of abstraction is added, people say it's worse and will never be as good as the old way. Though it's a totally biased opinion, we just have issues with giving up things we like as human being.

[roadbuster]

> Whenever a new layer of abstraction is added

LLMs aren't a "layer of abstraction."

99% of people writing in assembly don't have to drop down into manual cobbling of machine code. People who write in C rarely drop into assembly. Java developers typically treat the JVM as "the computer." In the OSI network stack, developers writing at level 7 (application layer) almost never drop to level 5 (session layer), and virtually no one even bothers to understand the magic at layers 1 & 2. These all represent successful, effective abstractions for developers.

In contrast, unless you believe 99% of "software development" is about to be replaced with "vibe coding", it's off the mark to describe LLMs as a new layer of abstraction.

[w4yai]

> unless you believe 99% of "software development" is about to be replaced with "vibe coding"

Probably not vibe coding, but most certainly with some AI automation

[duskdozer]

The difference is that LLM output is very nondeterministic.

[wtetzner]

And because of that, we check in the generated code, not the high-level abstraction. So to understand your program, you have to read the output, not the input.

[w4yai]

It depends. Temperature is a variable. If you really need determinism, you could build a LLM for that. Non-determinism can be a good feature though.