Thread

1. bengold14 · 1790612793 · focus · HN ↗

   I see this everyday. The problem is code is the wrong abstraction for the work we do. LLMs have solved coding, but they haven't solved systems, collaboration or system maintenance.

   Edit: Since I seem to have touched a nerve - I&#x27;ve been working on a project to solve this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.archme.io" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.archme.io if you want to know my thoughts on the right abstraction

   1. Avicebron · 1790613418 · focus · HN ↗

      Or more broadly, LLMs fundamentally don&#x27;t &quot;understand&quot;. They can simulate understanding and generate text&#x2F;code&#x2F;whatever, but they don&#x27;t have will to engage with something holistically and &quot;own&quot; it.

      1. visarga · 1790614275 · focus · HN ↗

         I have been trying to define &quot;understanding&quot;. Is it when you can predict something that you understood it? Or maybe when you can explain it? Or how about when you can control it? Or invent it.

         This time I add another definition &quot;when you can own it&quot;.

         1. bengold14 · 1790615933 · focus · HN ↗

            When you can own it - I like that. Humans are still needed to own systems and drive&#x2F;direct changes. The question is how can we collaborate as organizations and teams to still own it when we don&#x27;t write the code and can&#x27;t keep up with the output

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.