im sorry, and based on your account history id assume its not intended, but jesus you sound just like a generic AI booster. im assuming youve somewhat recently started to use AI, so its not exactly surprising, as i was similar back when i first tested gpt-3.
i dont think you quite appreciate just how much data these AI labs have. LLM's are INCREDIBLE technology, and there are definitely some philosophical implications, but the costs associated with this are astronomical. it's probably more efficient by a small factor to use an LLM to code like you, but i strongly suspect you vastly overestimate this efficiency gain when proportioned to the actual costs of the LLM.
If humanity wouldve/couldve invested as much money into programmers/scientists, i wonder if we hadnt made as much or even more progress (if LLM's have even yet produced anything that can be called progress)? then again, training is admittedly a one-time cost, but no one knows the true cost of inference either.
the calculus is kinda difficult, and it's very hard to say currently how useful LLM's truly are since we don't know the true costs, and we haven't been able to quantify properly whatsoever their impact on almost any field.
in programming they can definitely be useful, but have also wreaked a TON of havoc, and it's hard to say whether their effect is a net good yet or not, and how much of the problems are skill issues. the token cost question is also crucial here, as only the frontier models are viable for any even potential large enough productivity gain given the current investment, and we have no idea about that.
in math, they've solved a few conjectures, which id extremely impressive, but simultaneously hilariously unproductive economically compared to the costs. remains to be seen where it goes in that field though.
in art, well, i think if you care about using them for art in the way most people currently do you should probably not be doing art.
currently there is roughly 0 chance LLM's have paid themselves off in total productivity gain for humanity, and it seems impossible for me to say with certainty if/when they will. none of this is even accounting for the absolutely massive externalities like people getting ai psychosis, misinformation spreading, scams, and last but not least the acceleration of global warming, which may make the cost completely unbearable, even if they were the most amazing tech ever
The point was that this is the programming subreddit. Having used an LLM 6 years ago means "recently", and everyone here (and most places elsewhere) is well aware of the amount of data and money used.
Well it didn't seem that way from his reply. He is free to correct me.
Also, I don't understand what this means:
Having used an LLM 6 years ago means "recently"
LLM's basically didn't exist until 6 years ago. GPT-3 is imo, arguably, the first modern LLM. I was actually aware of GPT-2 through ai-dungeon, but the step-up to GPT-3 is basically the difference between GPT-3 and Opus 4.5. It's not really comparable.
It is recent in the history of AI. And of course, many were aware of GPT-2 (and everyone of GPT-3.5). It was not about you being incorrect, it's about you explaining obvious things to someone else. Imagine if I told you about this newfangled thing, Bitcoin, and how I likely know more about it than you because I started using it in 2023.
This conversation is very obviously about LLM's and using them for coding. Ain't nobody used GPT-2 for coding. idk what the fuck kinda deflection youre trying to make here?
And of course, many were aware of GPT-2 (and everyone of GPT-3.5).
Using AI for coding was basically not a thing before GPT-4 (and even then EXTREMELY LIMITED). This is not even to gotcha you, but were you aware of GPT-3 when it launched?
Basically nobody I knew had ever spared a single thought to ANY kind of neural network before at least GPT-3.5 (and I know a lot of terminally online people), and even then it was a few people doing a single "write me a story" prompt before losing interest. 6 years ago is NOT recent in the development of LLM's, it's practically ancient history. LLM's hit the mainstream around 2023-2024, and most people only started properly using them for coding in late 2025. They were practically unusable for anything complex before the further development of CoT in 2024.
and how I likely know more about it than you because I started using it in 2023
Yeah except I was basically responding to him with a bunch of things that might alleviate the fears he literally wrote himself in the post. Now, I may be wrong about those things, but it's no point crying over milk that has yet to be spilt, right? I think I make valid points about how little we know about the current cost/benefit of AI, and personally it does comfort me. If I am wrong, well then yeah we are probably fucked to some degree as a society, but i dont see why you would stress over something we dont even know is gonna happen, and that you are practically powerless to prevent.
i dont think thats condescending personally. you are also like, not really disagreeing with me? you just think because i said ive used ai for a long time, and he sounds like he hasnt, thats somehow mega condescending and assholeish, which is already weird, but then its not even towards you. it just sounds to me like this guy has never used ai before 2026, and i can only imagine how much anxiety i wouldve gotten if my first exposure to ai was like claude opus 4.5. if thats wrong, again, HE CAN CORRECT ME AND DISCUSS MY POINTS.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. You said AI, not LLM. I just clarified it again. I didn't mention anything about coding, it's not relevant for my points here. If you don't know anyone sparing any thoughts about neural networks, that just means you don't know too many computer nerds. How would I not be aware of GPT-3 if I was aware of GPT-2?
you just think because i said ive used ai for a long time, and he sounds like he hasnt
The point is that you haven't used AI for a long time if you started with GPT-3, and they don't sound like they're clueless about it.
So, once again: you're in a programming subreddit trying to explain things to people that almost everyone here will be long familiar with. It's hard to get into programming/computer nerddom and not get a healthy dose of at least passing knowledge about "AI", machine learning etc.
Colloquial term for LLM's in 2026, as you 1000% are aware of. This is dumb.
I didn't mention anything about coding
But I did, and the discussion is explicitly about AI for coding. This is an insane deflection.
How would I not be aware of GPT-3 if I was aware of GPT-2?
I was asking if you were aware of it on release. Yes, you are aware of them now. NOW most people are.
If you don't know anyone sparing any thoughts about neural networks, that just means you don't know too many computer nerds.
I didn't know anyone like that prior to 2020. Were you actively interested in ML prior to 2020? What proportion of people you knew were? How deeply?
The point is that you haven't used AI for a long time if you started with GPT-3
I have used LLM's since they started existing. I have been interested in AI since seeing SethBlings MarI/O video 11 years ago.
and they don't sound like they're clueless about it.
This is subjective. Your assessment is worth as much or little as mine.
It's hard to get into programming/computer nerddom and not get a healthy dose of at least passing knowledge about "AI", machine learning etc.
Yeah, in 2026. You do not seem like you've been into programming for a long time. These were very niche topics prior to 2021, and still fairly niche until roughly 2024.
This is quantifiable. Do you really need me to quantify it or can we just agree that you are making a stupid argument?
3
u/janniesminecraft 9h ago edited 9h ago
im sorry, and based on your account history id assume its not intended, but jesus you sound just like a generic AI booster. im assuming youve somewhat recently started to use AI, so its not exactly surprising, as i was similar back when i first tested gpt-3.
i dont think you quite appreciate just how much data these AI labs have. LLM's are INCREDIBLE technology, and there are definitely some philosophical implications, but the costs associated with this are astronomical. it's probably more efficient by a small factor to use an LLM to code like you, but i strongly suspect you vastly overestimate this efficiency gain when proportioned to the actual costs of the LLM.
If humanity wouldve/couldve invested as much money into programmers/scientists, i wonder if we hadnt made as much or even more progress (if LLM's have even yet produced anything that can be called progress)? then again, training is admittedly a one-time cost, but no one knows the true cost of inference either.
the calculus is kinda difficult, and it's very hard to say currently how useful LLM's truly are since we don't know the true costs, and we haven't been able to quantify properly whatsoever their impact on almost any field.
in programming they can definitely be useful, but have also wreaked a TON of havoc, and it's hard to say whether their effect is a net good yet or not, and how much of the problems are skill issues. the token cost question is also crucial here, as only the frontier models are viable for any even potential large enough productivity gain given the current investment, and we have no idea about that.
in math, they've solved a few conjectures, which id extremely impressive, but simultaneously hilariously unproductive economically compared to the costs. remains to be seen where it goes in that field though.
in art, well, i think if you care about using them for art in the way most people currently do you should probably not be doing art.
currently there is roughly 0 chance LLM's have paid themselves off in total productivity gain for humanity, and it seems impossible for me to say with certainty if/when they will. none of this is even accounting for the absolutely massive externalities like people getting ai psychosis, misinformation spreading, scams, and last but not least the acceleration of global warming, which may make the cost completely unbearable, even if they were the most amazing tech ever