Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after Navier-Stokes(dank.systems)
245 points by jaykru 17 hours ago | 283 comments
tl;dr: Frontier LLMs' headline wins (Navier-Stokes, CVE discovery) come from rare domains with rigorous, machine-checkable specifications, but most knowledge work lacks such specs and writing them is prohibitively expensive—leaving models dependent on human oversight that doesn't scale. As a result, autonomous LLM deployment will be viable mainly for three narrow classes: firms that tolerate cheap failure, narrow guardrailed tasks, and domains already paying for rigorous validation (chip design, drug discovery). Most of these use cases are price-sensitive or favor swarm width over reasoning depth, undermining the frontier labs' valuations premised on drop-in knowledge worker replacement.
HN Discussion:
  • Evidence of LLM limitations (e.g., chess illegal moves) reinforces the article's skepticism
  • The article mischaracterizes how frontier labs are actually valued
  • Bearish on autonomy but bullish on LLM+human collaboration aligns with article's thesis
  • Open/cheap models will undercut frontier labs, supporting the article's economic argument
  • The article underestimates LLM potential if massive compute were orchestrated toward problems