Comment by mirkodrummer
8 days ago
That is the by product of this tech bubble called hacker news, programmers that think that real world problems can be solved by an algorithm that's been useful to them. Haven't you thought about that it might be useful just to you and nothing more? It's the same pattern again and again, first with blockchain and crypto, then nfts, today ai, tomorrow whatever will come. I'd also argue it's useful in real software engineering, except for some tedious/repetitive tasks. Think about it: how nn LLM that by default create a react app for a simple form can be the right thing to use for a therapist? As well as it comes with his own biases on React apps what biases would come with for a therapy?
I feel like this argument is a byproduct of being relatively well-off in a Western country (apologies if I'm wrong), where access to therapists and mental healthcare is a given rather than a luxury (and even that is arguable).
> programmers that think that real world problems can be solved by an algorithm that's been useful to them.
Are you suggesting programmers aren't solving real-world problems? That's a strange take, considering nearly every service, tool, or system you rely on today is built and maintained by software engineers to some extent. I'm not sure what point you're making or how it challenges what I actually said.
> Haven't you thought about that it might be useful just to you and nothing more? It's the same pattern again and again, first with blockchain and crypto, then nfts, today ai, tomorrow whatever will come.
Haven't you considered how crypto, despite the hype, has played a real and practical role in countries where fiat currencies have collapsed to the point people resort to in-game currencies as a substitute? (https://archive.ph/MCoOP) Just because a technology gets co-opted by hype or bad actors doesn't mean it has no valid use cases.
> Think about it: how nn LLM that by default create a react app for a simple form can be the right thing to use for a therapist?
LLMs are far more capable than you're giving them credit for in that statement, and that example isn't even close to what I was suggesting.
If your takeaway from my original comment was that I want to replace therapists with a code-generating chatbot, then you either didn't read it carefully or willfully misinterpreted it. The point was about accessibility in parts of the world where human therapists are inaccessible, costly, or simply don't exist in meaningful numbers, AI-assisted tools (with a human in the loop wherever possible) may help close the gap. That doesn't require perfection or replacement, just being better than nothing, which is what many people currently have.
> Are you suggesting programmers aren't solving real-world problems?
Mostly not by a long shot, if you reduce everything to its essence we're not solving real world problems anymore, just putting masks in front of some data.
And no only a fool may believe people from El Salvador or people from other countries benefited from Bitcoin/Cryptos. ONLY the government and the few people involved benefited from it.
Lastly you didn't get my point, let me re iterate it: an coding assistant llm has it own strong biases given training set, an llm trained for doing therapy would have the same bias, each training set has one, and given the biases the code assistance llms currently have(slop dataset=slop code generation) i'd still rather prefer a human programmer as well i'd stil prefer a human therapist