← Back to context

Comment by blfr

1 day ago

I do neither maths nor science with AI but in my experience most models are perfectly willing to burn tokens on a ton of sidequests at the earliest opportunity.

Yeah but do you read through and find if one of those side quests is useful?

  • They're often directly applicable: minor bugs, inconsistencies, missing tests, commonly also stuff I already now (like some infra config details).

    • Minor bug and develop whole new field of cryptography are very different scales. I do agree alms are really good with a lot of common bug fix related tasks to the point you have to split commits out. The fact is you recognise it's a minor bug. Who is sitting through the proof of Navier Stokes and going through it and finding connections between itself and other fields? Im not saying LLMs are bad, but I do think understanding is important. Heck, the fact you identified the minor bug suggests you understand the output. Im not so sure the same can be said of a gajillion line lean dump.