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.
LLMs are bad at vibing specifications
Hillel Wayne discusses how LLMs, while popular for writing formal specifications like TLA+ and Alloy, often produce shallow, tautological properties that fail to capture subtle bugs, based on analysis of community projects.
What would optimal use of LLMs even look like?
Explores the speculative idea of optimizing human interaction with LLMs by conforming to their native communication patterns, such as using neuralese, rather than forcing them to adapt to human language.
Why can't LLMs be trained to think in an optimized AI language rather than English?
A speculative discussion questioning why LLMs are not trained to think in an optimized internal language rather than natural language, and whether that could improve efficiency.
Effective use-cases for LLMs
This article shares practical, real-world use cases for LLMs in software engineering, including searching through customer conversations via RAG, triaging API failures from logs, and shortening content. It emphasizes efficiency gains and reducing manual sifting.