> If an LLM is typing that code - and it can maintain a test suite that shows everything works correctly - maybe we don't need that abstraction after all.
I've had plenty of junior devs justify massive code bases of random scripts and 100+ line functions with the same logic. There's a reason senior devs almost always push back on this when it's encountered.
Everything hinges on that "if". But you're baking a tautology into your reasoning: "if LLMs can do everything we need them to, we can use LLMs for everything we need".
The reason we stop junior devs from going down this path is because experience teaches us that things will break and when they do, it will incur a world of pain.
So "LLM as abstraction" might be a possible future, but it assumes LLMs are significantly more capable than a junior dev at managing a growing mess of complex code.
This is clearly not the case with simplistic LLM usage today. "Ah! But you need agents and memory and context management, etc!" But all of these are abstractions. This is what I believe the parent comment is really pointing out.
If AI could do what we originally hoped it could: follow simple instructions to solve complex tasks. We'd be great, and I would agree with your argument. But we are very clearly not in that world. Especially since Karpathy can't even keep up with the sophisticated machinery necessary to properly orchestrate these tools. All of the people decrying "you're not doing it right!" are emphatically proving that LLMs cannot perform these tasks at the level we need them to.
I've had plenty of junior devs justify massive code bases of random scripts and 100+ line functions with the same logic. There's a reason senior devs almost always push back on this when it's encountered.
Everything hinges on that "if". But you're baking a tautology into your reasoning: "if LLMs can do everything we need them to, we can use LLMs for everything we need".
The reason we stop junior devs from going down this path is because experience teaches us that things will break and when they do, it will incur a world of pain.
So "LLM as abstraction" might be a possible future, but it assumes LLMs are significantly more capable than a junior dev at managing a growing mess of complex code.
This is clearly not the case with simplistic LLM usage today. "Ah! But you need agents and memory and context management, etc!" But all of these are abstractions. This is what I believe the parent comment is really pointing out.
If AI could do what we originally hoped it could: follow simple instructions to solve complex tasks. We'd be great, and I would agree with your argument. But we are very clearly not in that world. Especially since Karpathy can't even keep up with the sophisticated machinery necessary to properly orchestrate these tools. All of the people decrying "you're not doing it right!" are emphatically proving that LLMs cannot perform these tasks at the level we need them to.