Because it can't, and may never be able to. The lack of progress on making LLMs actually useful is not encouraging for future prospects of advancement, but we shall see I guess.
The anti-AI movement feels increasingly cultish.
Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
11–20 of 332 posts
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#12Nice experiment!
I'm using a similar approach in an app I'm building. Seeing how well it works, I now really believe that in the coming years we'll see a lot of "just-in-time generation" for software.
If you haven't already, you should try using qwen-coder on Cerebras (or kimi-k2 on Groq). They are _really_ fast, and they might make the whole thing actually viable in terms of speed.
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#13Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#14[deleted]
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#15Good work. I've been thinking about this for awhile and also experimenting with letting the LLM do all the work, backend logic plus generating the front-end and handle all front-end events. With tool use and agentic loops, I don't see any reason this can't work where it meets the latency needs (which hopefully could be improved over time).
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#16With no routes, no controllers, no business logic, how can the capability exist? These are the core components of a web app and require extensive coding. I know we might eventually get there but not with the present state of technology. There is something fundamental missing about "intelligence" which must be solved before AGI can be approached, throwing more money and nVidia chips at the problem can only take you so far.
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#17If you're working like that then the prompt is the code and the LLM is the interpreter, and it's not obvious to me that it would be "better" than just running it normally, especially since an LLM with that level of capability could definitely help you with coding, no?
I think part of the issue is that most frameworks really suck. Web programming isn't that complicated at its core, the overengineering is mind boggling at times.
Thinking in the limit, if you have to define some type of logic unambiguously, would you want to do it in English?
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud, it's pretty cool that this works at all, interesting project!
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#18The fatal problem with LLM-as-runtime-club isn’t performance. It’s ops (especially security).
When the god rectangle fails, there is literally nobody on earth who can even diagnose the problem, let alone fix it. Reasoning about the system is effectively impossible. And the vulnerability of the system is almost limitless, since it’s possible to coax LLMs into approximations of anything you like: from an admin dashboard to a sentient potato.
“zero UI consistency” is probably the least of your worries, but object permanence is kind of fundamental to how humans perceive the world. Being able to maintain that illusion is table stakes.
Despite all that, it’s a fun experiment.
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#19I tried this too! Where every button on the page triggered a get or post request, but the consistency between views was non existent lol, every refresh showed a different UI Definitely fixable with memory for the views and stuff though but keeping it pure like this is a very cool experiment. Since yours is using a actual storage maybe You could try also persisting page code or making the server stateful and running eval() on generated code. Love this
Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)
#20The question posed sounds like "why should we have deterministic behavior if we can have non-deterministic behavior instead?"
Am I wrong to think that the answer is obvious? I mean, who wants web apps to behave differently every time you interact with them?