Un avis de l’équipe interne de #GNOME à propos de l’utilisation des #LLM - que je trouve tout à fait correcte et nuancée (et acceptable) : « *People that are learning to code should never use LLMs to begin with. It’s like copy-pasting from StackOverflow, except actively worse, because StackOverflow answers at least come with an explanation and some human validation.
The only people that end up using LLMs are people that are not learning to code, but want to submit something anyway, which ends up in an additional maintenance burden for the people reviewing the code, who now have to deal with utter nonsense or subtly wrong nonsense.* » ceci n’empêche pas l’utilisation de #LLM pour avis, prompt, introspection et exploration, mais le résultat proposé DOIT être en adéquation avec l’amélioration recherchée. En d’autres termes, on veut éviter de reporter la charge technique sur le reviewer plutôt que sur le développeur. Et ceux qui proposent des patchs LLM-isé n’auraient probablement pas proposé de patch du tout sans #LLM.
Un avis que je rejoins totalement sur les #LLM : « So now I'm paying $20 a month to a company that scraped the collective knowledge of humanity without asking so that I can avoid writing Kubernetes YAML. I know what that makes me. I just haven't figured out a word for it yet that I can live with.
When I asked my EVE friend about it on a recent TeamSpeak session, he was quiet for awhile. I thought that maybe my moral dilemma had shocked him into silence. Then he said, "You know what the difference is between you and me? I know I'm a mercenary. You thought you were an artist. We're both guys who type for money."
I couldn't think of a clever response to that. I still can't. »