Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#181

Post by codebje »

stirfish wrote: post #86
113 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because nobody actually wants a "web app". People want food, love, sex or: solutions. Okay but when I start my car I want to drive it, not fuck it.

But do you want to drive, or do you want to be wherever you need to be to fuck?

For me personally, the latter, but there's definitely people out there that just love driving.

Either way, these silly reductionist games aren't addressing the point: if I just want to get from A to B then I definitely want the absolute minimum of unpredictability in how I do it.

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#184

Post by sarchertech »

ethmarks wrote: post #177
sarchertech wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average mechanic won’t do something completely different to your car because you added some extra filler words to your request though. The average user may not care exactly what the mechanic does to fix your car, but they do expect things to be repeatable. If car repair LLMs function anything like coding LLMs, one request could result in an oil change, while a similar request could end up with an engine replaceme…

I think we're making similar points, but I kind of phrased it weirdly. I agree that current LLMs are sensitive to phrasing and are highly unpredictable and therefore aren't useful in AI-based backends. The point I'm making is that these issues are potentially solvable with better AI and don't philosophically invalidate the idea of a non-programmatic backend. One could imagine a hypothetical AI model that can do a pre…

All of that is theoretically possible. I’m doubtful that LLMs will be the thing that gets us to that though.

Even if it is possible, I’m not sure if we will ever have the compute power to run all or even a significant portion of the world’s computations through LLMs.

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#185

Post by hoppp »

Because LLMs have a big chance to screw things up. They can't take responsibility. A person can take responsibility for code, but can they do the same for tool calling? Not really, because it's probabilistic. A webs service shouldn't be probabilistic

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#186

Post by array_key_first »

sarchertech wrote: post #168
ethmarks wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but the average user is capable of describing what they want to something trained in interpreting what users want. The average person is incapable of articulating the exact steps necessary to change a car's oil, but they have no issue with saying "change my car's oil" to a mechanic. The implicit assumption with LLM-based backends is that the LLM would be capable of correctly interpreting vague user requests. Othe…

The average mechanic won’t do something completely different to your car because you added some extra filler words to your request though. The average user may not care exactly what the mechanic does to fix your car, but they do expect things to be repeatable. If car repair LLMs function anything like coding LLMs, one request could result in an oil change, while a similar request could end up with an engine replaceme…

Mechanics, and humans, are non-deterministic. Every mechanic works differently, because they have different bodies and minds.

LLMs are, of course, bad. Or not good enough, at least. But suppose they are. Suppose they're perfect.

Would I rather use an app or just directly interface with an LLM? The LLM might be quicker and easier. I know, for example, ordering takeout is much faster if I just call and speak to a person.

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#187

Post by TheTaytay »

darkstarsys wrote: post #112
d-lisp wrote: post #54

Why would you need webapps when you could just talk out loud to your computer ? Why would I need programs with colors, buttons, actual UI ? I am trying to imagine a future where file navigators don't even exist : "I want to see the photos I took while I was in vacations last year. Yes, can you remove that cloud ? Perfect, now send it to XXXX's computer and say something nice." "Can you set some timers for my sport se…

I just this week vibe-coded a personal knowledge management app that reads all my org-mode and logseq files and answers questions, and can update them, with WebSpeech voice input. Now it's my todo manager, grocery list, "what do I need to do today?", "when did I get the leaves done the last few years?" and so on, even on mobile (bye bye Android-Emacs). It's just a basic chatbot with a few tools and access to my files…

Very cool! Does it load all of the files into context or grep files to find the right ones based on the conversation?

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#188

Post by array_key_first »

lazide wrote: post #72
admax88qqq wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right I get tha. The point I’m making is that from a users perspective it’s functionally very similar. A non deterministic llm or a non deterministic company full of designers and engineers.

Regardless of what changes the bank makes, it’s not going to let you access someone else’s money. This llm very well might.

Well, software has been known to have vulnerabilities...

Consider this: the bank teller is non-deterministic, too. They could give you 500 dollars of someone else's money. But they don't, generally.

Re: Show HN: Why write code if the LLM can just do the thing? (web app experiment)

#190

Post by theendisney »

samrolken wrote: post #159
Finbarr wrote: post #109

If you added a few more tools that let the LLM modify code files that would directly serve requests, that would significantly speed up future responses and also ensure consistency. Code would act like memory. A direct HTTP request to the LLM is like a cache miss. You could still have the feedback mechanism allowing a bypass that causes an update to the code. Perhaps code just becomes a store of consistency for LLMs o…

This was an unserious experiment meant to illustrate the gap and bottlenecks that are still there. I agree that there's a lot that could be done to optimize this kind of approach. But even if you did, I'm not sure the results would be viable and I'm pretty sure classic coding (with LLM assistance and all) would still outperform such a product.

You need to do more unserious experments. This one is perhaps the best stupid idea ive seen.

Maybe the browser should learn to talk back.

You could store the pages in the database and periodically generate a new version based on the current set of pages and the share of traffic they enjoy. You would get something that evolves and stabilizes in some niche. Have an innitial prompt like; "dinosaurs!" Then sit back and see the magic unfold.

Post reply on HN