Quoting Bryan Cantrill
Summary
Bryan Cantrill critiques LLMs for lacking the optimization constraint of human laziness, arguing that LLMs will unnecessarily complicate systems rather than improve them, and highlighting how human time limitations drive the development of efficient abstractions.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 04/20/26, 08:27 AM
Similar Articles
LLMs are not the black box you were promised
An article summarizing Anthropic's 2025 paper on mechanistic interpretability, showing that LLMs are not black boxes and that circuit tracing can reveal multi-step reasoning and human-identifiable concepts.
Humanising LLM Outputs Is Dumb
An opinion piece arguing that humanising LLM outputs via prompt instructions is the wrong abstraction—agents should exchange high-fidelity data and only compress into human-friendly prose at the final boundary.
The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway
The author agrees with LLM critics about issues like slop and ethics but still uses LLMs, describing the cognitive dissonance observed at a tech conference.
Software Engineers: Do you honestly get anything useful out of LLMs?
A software engineer expresses frustration with local LLMs for agentic coding, citing issues like technical debt, ignored instructions, and excessive code generation, questioning their usefulness.
@msimoni: So far, I haven't been able to make LLMs significantly help me with the hard parts of programming - designing code that…
The author finds that LLMs are not significantly helpful for the hard parts of programming (designing simple, general, clear code) but are so helpful for other parts that they rate them as a 10x productivity improvement.