The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway
I agree with almost every valid critique of LLMs, from environmental damage to the flood of low-quality code, yet I still rely on them daily. This dissonance is shared by many engineers who applaud critical talks while using tools like Claude Code. Despite the risks to open-source trust and geopolitical instability, I believe we must embrace local, open-weight models to maintain independence and shape the future of AI rather than fighting an unstoppable tide.
In a world hurtling towards AI, we believe humans are the best agents.
- msdz
> LLM’s amplify what you already have: opinions, structure, frameworks.
So far, so agreeable, but…
> If you have thoughts, they come out sharper and faster.
I can’t help but wonder whether constant use of “agent” harnesses will lead to an atrophy of the software engineering (or really any field) muscles.
Actual muscles need exercise to stay in shape (let alone grow), so does the brain. Can we really be sure that thoughts, opinions, taste will still come out sharper and faster after five, ten, 20 years of using these tools almost every day?
Conversely, I also am a user of LLMs (true shocker these days, I know), and am noticing a speedup in areas I was already familiar with, and a quicker introduction to new ones. The obvious benefit cannot be denied, and doing so regardless makes you look uninformed. [0]
So what’s the ideal “middle ground” in this situation? Stoically continuing to sharpen your skills on your own, but risking being left in the dust productivity-wise? Or taking an “agent first” approach and trying to learn and improve more only on the side, as more of an afterthought?
[0] Excluding people who don’t want anything to do with LLMs out of moral principle, which curiously just like the overarching topic I also both respect and understand, but on the other hand don’t do myself.
- mark_and_sweep
> a genuinely good tool that enriches your thinking
A smartphone is also a genuinely good all-around tool. Even social media is a genuinely good tool for connecting people.
Yet, I feel like we've been overly optimistic about the impact of said tools on us and our societies in the past two decades.
Smartphones are so good, in fact, in some societies, half of us are addicted to them. Billions of people world-wide.
I ask myself: Will LLMs enrich my thinking in the long run, or will they ruin it?
And what about most people? Will half of us outsource most of our thinking in a decade from now?
Given the speed and global scale that we're running these experiments with, it's fair, I think, to be a bit sceptical of the conclusion that, in the long run, LLMs will enrich our thinking.
- YeGoblynQueenne
>> I am a little bit scared to say this too: last month I spent almost 10k USD on tokens. It sounds so insane.
No it just sounds completely stupid. You spent $10k to get a program to write text that you can write yourself just as well and for free. "Dissonance" doesn't even begin to describe it. It's like suddenly everyone has turned into the listless blobs of fat that humans have turned into in Wall-E.
I just hope all that will eventually correct itself: open (one way or another) models will reach parity with proprietary ones when diminishing returns eventually make it impossible for LLMs to grow any longer, OpenAI and Anthropic will succeed in bankrupting each other, it will become possible for everyone to run their own, personal, free and open (one way or another) model on their own laptop (assuming we still own our laptops) and at that point most of the problems with LLMs, particularly the ones that come from having to pay someone else to do the things you could always do yourself for free, will go away.
I just hope.
- swiftcoder
> I am a little bit scared to say this too: last month I spent almost 10k USD on tokens. It sounds so insane.
What are people actually doing with all these tokens? I use LLMs pretty heavily for development, and I'm rarely spending all the tokens that come with a $10/month OpenCode Go subscription...
- sivakon
> And then there are the geopolitical tensions. What happens if China or the US cut us off overnight from these technologies? Just a couple of weeks ago the US government showed it was able and willing to cut off non-US citizens from Anthropic’s latest frontier model.
The only evidence you have is US here and all the frontier models from China are free to download. Pure projection.
You can read China's AI strategy here: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5766.html
- jszymborski
> I tend not to actually read most LLM output anymore; I skim it, to check if I vibe with it. But a problem statement of three sentences, that I will fact-check really hard. It is like code review: a review with 1,000 lines of code gets an “LGTM”. A review with 100 lines gets 15 comments.
This is where I take issue. I'm in a similar boat to the author. In the last couple of months, I've been experimenting with increasing the use of local and cloud LLMs for my research code. I'll create a prototype, maybe port it to a language I don't use very much like Rust, run some tests... but at the very end when I'm very happy with it, I _need_ to go line by line and understand _everything_ that is happening. Sometimes that means using an LLM to understand it, but even when I do and there is a concept I don't get, I try to read primary resources written by experts.
The least bad thing I've found LLMs good for is ideation because it's super easy to take the good nuggets and leave the bad, but even that carries risks of shaping thought and making everyone reach for and ignore the same ideas in the way the Spotify radio or YouTube autoplay has been shaping/flattening tastes for the worse.
I'm not sure what I'll rule at the end of my experiments with LLMs, but right now I'm enjoying the rush of having prototypes that run quickly. I've always been a top-down learner, being motivated by hacking a cool demo I half understand and progressively tearing it apart.
- a1o
One thing about open source is a lot of people are throwing low quality PRs that should have been an issue or even a discussion, so you can understand what was the problem the person encountered that motivated such PR. This is hard to get because usually people use LLMs to also answer questions you make about the PR. I am tending towards blocking PRs from people outside the main developers in most of my open source projects. If the person CAN discuss the problem, authoring the PR is easier if I do it myself, even if using an LLM, because reviewing a PR authored by random internet people/bots is hard because of how much the entire code tends to change after minimal questions are asked. What I am sad of this approach is that I did met a few interesting people through receiving PRs and establishing trust and some relationships in the past (eight years ago and before)
- adamas
Do I understand that spend report right ? 10k USD in a month for AI tokens ? After talking about the environmental cost of AI ?
- Lerc
>I almost agree with all of the LLM critics
That seems unlikely given the diverse nature of mutually exclusive opinions that exist out there.
Critics seem to run the gamut from LLMs being incapable of even the most basic of functions to already sentient creatures secretly plotting our destruction with steganographic messages to each other.
It's maybe a bell curve with some wacky at those tails, but there's some fairly significant differences of opinion amongst the positions that are more mainstream.
Just the difference between critics of all LLMs and crutics of all closed weights models are a pretty big gap.
Similarly for those who criticise them for over censorship vs those who criticise them for unrestricted generation.
- post-it
> And this is where the value is for me: I can simply make things higher quality than I could do them alone.
Yeah, that's the thing for me. LLMs have made my work easier and faster, and they've made my side projects easier and faster. I think there are very sensible and valid critiques but so far the tool works for me.