Natanox to [email protected]English • 11 days agoEasy, it's uuuuuuuuh…discuss.tchncs.deimagemessage-square43fedilinkarrow-up1487arrow-down14
arrow-up1483arrow-down1imageEasy, it's uuuuuuuuh…discuss.tchncs.deNatanox to [email protected]English • 11 days agomessage-square43fedilink
minus-squarecircuitfarmerlinkfedilink13•11 days agoI don’t disagree with this hot take. But the major difference is the sheer resources needed to have an LLM in place of a “do one thing right” utility like sed. In that sense, they are incomparable.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink10•11 days agoI think they’re arguing for having the LLM generate the regex. And I certainly would not trust an LLM to do that right.
minus-squareNatanoxOPlinkfedilinkEnglish9•11 days agoYeah, it’s way more sensible to use some of the available regex utilities like this. Although it’s always funny to see what an LLM comes up with.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•edit-211 days agoI mean fair. I guess the caveat here should be fucking learn regex first, lmao. Don’t use it works not necessary. Google is probably still better if you’re looking for regex for an email or something like that And also don’t just rely on its answer for prod.
I don’t disagree with this hot take. But the major difference is the sheer resources needed to have an LLM in place of a “do one thing right” utility like sed. In that sense, they are incomparable.
I think they’re arguing for having the LLM generate the regex. And I certainly would not trust an LLM to do that right.
Yeah, it’s way more sensible to use some of the available regex utilities like this. Although it’s always funny to see what an LLM comes up with.
I mean fair.
I guess the caveat here should be fucking learn regex first, lmao.
Don’t use it works not necessary. Google is probably still better if you’re looking for regex for an email or something like that
And also don’t just rely on its answer for prod.