Spoken like a developer who doesn't understand how real world works.
> Using this as a tool to signal can be a huge time saver. But not taking the code output as "truth" is what the engineer meant.
Lavingia didn't provide any provable metric that this tool was going a "huge time saver". Additionally, if the output isn't the "truth", what can kind of time saving is expected? That a person needs to run the code, get result and then spend time analyzing results and cross verifying contracts again?
You know what will be a good time saver? Open the contracts and cross check it if it is valid. No AI slop required.
> This article, just like you, are taking all of these out of context.
Real people are impacted by VA contracts. If there is even 1 contract impacting even 100s of people that is enough damage. Saying that this is people taking things out of context shows your of empathy for other human beings, at least if they are not coders.
Because apparently Lavingia should get kudos for his transparency. But calling him an idiot for his lack of self-awareness that he had no clue about government contracts and should not be writing AI and creating this mess, all the while impacting people's life? Well we can't have that.
> He's using LLM's as a potential flag, then you go and human review those contracts with lawyers, supply chain, business specialists, nurses on the ground, etc. etc.
If human review is the point then start from there. Don't write AI slop, generate wrong result and then ask for human review.
To the larger point - Benjamin Franklin said - 'It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer'. In the same vein every well meaning contract/legislation which is helping 100s will have 10s exploiting the loophole. People like Lavingia and from DOGE seemed to have decided that rooting out those 10s is worth hurting the 100s. So, lets write an AI for that.
using an LLM is a very VERY small part of the code he published. 12 lines out of around 13k lines. You seem to be disagreeing with the concept, not the actual code. you prolly could have reviewed the code in the time it took you to google that ben franklin quote.
If you look at the code, he explicitly filters for sole source before he even sicks a LLM on it.
Regardless, number of lines is not an accurate metric of how "essential" a component is to the functioning of the overall system. How about this, try removing the LLM-related code from the script... what functionality is left, exactly?
> Using this as a tool to signal can be a huge time saver. But not taking the code output as "truth" is what the engineer meant.
Lavingia didn't provide any provable metric that this tool was going a "huge time saver". Additionally, if the output isn't the "truth", what can kind of time saving is expected? That a person needs to run the code, get result and then spend time analyzing results and cross verifying contracts again?
You know what will be a good time saver? Open the contracts and cross check it if it is valid. No AI slop required.
> This article, just like you, are taking all of these out of context.
Real people are impacted by VA contracts. If there is even 1 contract impacting even 100s of people that is enough damage. Saying that this is people taking things out of context shows your of empathy for other human beings, at least if they are not coders.
Because apparently Lavingia should get kudos for his transparency. But calling him an idiot for his lack of self-awareness that he had no clue about government contracts and should not be writing AI and creating this mess, all the while impacting people's life? Well we can't have that.
> He's using LLM's as a potential flag, then you go and human review those contracts with lawyers, supply chain, business specialists, nurses on the ground, etc. etc.
If human review is the point then start from there. Don't write AI slop, generate wrong result and then ask for human review.
To the larger point - Benjamin Franklin said - 'It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer'. In the same vein every well meaning contract/legislation which is helping 100s will have 10s exploiting the loophole. People like Lavingia and from DOGE seemed to have decided that rooting out those 10s is worth hurting the 100s. So, lets write an AI for that.