Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Graham Lovelace's avatar

Good to see you being proved right Gary.👏

Gerben Wierda's avatar

GenAI has been embedded in all sorts of symbolic logical almost from the start. For instance, the way that they checked for 'bad stuff' in GPT-3 was based on simple string matching, funnily enough: including on their own generated text (so you would get a reply by GPT that was marked as 'potentially in conflict with OpenAI's rules...). I labeled such things at the time as 'AoD' (Admission of Defeat) for the pure GenAI/scaling approach (we're talking 2023 here). These days a tool like Claude Code mixes all kinds of elements which makes its code patterns very usable, but as I have been finding out while using it on its best setting (Opus Extended), it may be able to code, but that doesn't mean it is able to program very well (which things like a single function of >3000 lines illustrates).

Claude Code is magical from the perspective of a programmer, and there are certainly situations where this is going to improve productivity, but it still has no understanding what it is doing, neurosymbolic or not. And the way this is exploding in compute gives quite a bit of warnings in how far this approach really scales. Producing working code patterns is not the same as programming/designing and the symbolic parts are for instance geared to produce 'anything that works' by preventing wrong stuff to reach the user (a filter/feedback loop that cleans up after very wasteful generation).

The link you shared is worthwhile to read in full: https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-snake-that-ate-itself-what-claude

188 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?