this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2026
43 points (77.9% liked)
Programming
28826 readers
350 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're not an idiot, and you (nevertheless) use LLMs, they probably meet most of those criteria.
I don't like how the author buys into anthropomorphization. LLMs do not act on their own.
He's right that tools don't "go rogue". Neither do LLMs. That's just a lie to try to avoid accountability. ChatGPT didn't hack the Australian government; PEOPLE did, and those people belong in prison.
LLMs ar intrinsically undeterministic. You cannot posibly control what they do, and you (realistically) don't control the data tgat they have been trained on and how they are tuned to behave. Respectfully. I think your statement shows a lack of fundamental understanding on how they work.
It's a matter of degrees, and of use case.
If your use case demands 100% accuracy, that's a dead end.
If you can't validate the output, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
I keep going back to the same rule of thumb: if you can't do it without AI, you can't do it, period. It's a time saver, not a magic wand.
oh damn, i'm stealing that last one.