← Back to context

Comment by zkmon

2 days ago

I think the internal of transformers would become less relevant like internal of compilers, as programmers would only care about how to "use" them instead of how to develop them.

Have you written a compiler? I ask because for me writing a compiler was absolutely an inflection point in my journey as a programmer. Being able to look at code and reason about it all the way down to bytecode/IL/asm etc absolutely improved my skill as a programmer and ability to reason about software. For me this was the first time I felt like a real programmer.

  • Writing a compiler is not a requirement or good use of time for a programmer. Same as why driving a car should not require you to build the car engine. Driver should stick to their role and learn how to drive properly.

    • I'm guessing the answer then is "no".

      That's a ridiculous metaphor as well because building a compiler is a massive software engineering project that covers a huge range of essential skills. That metaphor would work for building a computer, but not a compiler.

      Clearly it shouldn't be a requirement, but it is an excellent use of a programmer's time. I can think of no software project over my career that has improved my skills more than writing a compiler.

Practitioners already do not need to know about it to run let alone use LLMs. I bet most don't even know the fundamentals of machine learning. Hands up if you know bias from variance...

Their internals are just as relevant (now even more relevant) as any other technology as they always need to be improved to the SOTA (state of the art) meaning that someone has to understand their internals.

It also means more jobs for the people who understand them at a deeper level to advance the SOTA of specific widely used technologies such as operating systems, compilers, neural network architectures and hardware such as GPUs or TPU chips.

Someone has to maintain and improve them.