> LLMs will enable some people to run a whole business on "real" applications without hiring a "real" programmer
SaaS, and before that a lot of shrink wrap software, has been allowing this for several decades now.
> LLMs will enable some people to run a whole business on "real" applications without hiring a "real" programmer
SaaS, and before that a lot of shrink wrap software, has been allowing this for several decades now.
So what? Just because you had one way to do something before, that means having a different way of doing it is useless? We have the C language, and it’s been letting people write applications for decades. Does that mean there’s no value in other programming languages?
> that means having a different way of doing it is useless?
That’s a ridiculous jump to a totally extreme conclusion that’s not supported by any message above. What does one even answer to this without getting sucked into a pointless argument?
You don't understand how a comment chain that went from:
> Cars qualitatively opened up something that humans could never do before. > Same with the computer. What about LLMs? > LLMs just replace what you were already doing
to:
> LLMs also allow people who never were doing something to now do that thing > as well. > ... > LLMs will enable some people to run a whole business on "real" applications > without hiring a "real" programmer.
to:
> SaaS, and before that a lot of shrink wrap software, has been allowing this > for several decades now.
leads one to conclude you seem to feel that if something doesn't let you do something you weren't doing before, that it has no value? Because I'm otherwise unclear about what your comment was then supposed to express. The entirety of your reply was to express that the thing an LLM will enable was something that was also enabled by something else. Given the topic of conversation, it seems reasonable to conclude that expression was in the context of talking about the value of AI tools with respect to how they remove friction. If that wasn't the point, then if you could perhaps use more words to state your point directly instead of leaving it to the reader to infer that your point was tangential to the main thrust of the discussion.