191–200 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using agents is programming. Programming is done with the mind, the tapping of keys isn’t inherent to the process.
Unfortunately IDEs are not yet directly connected to our minds, so there's still that silly little step of encoding your ideas in a way that can be compiled into binary. Playing the broken telephone game with an LLM is not always the most efficient way of explaining things to a computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, I see a lot of "magical thinking" among people who promote AI. They imagine a "perfect" AI tool that can basically do everything better than a human can. Maybe this is possible. Maybe not. However, it's a fantasy. Granted, it is a compelling fantasy. But its not one based on reality. A good example: "AI will probably be smarter than any single human next year. By 2029, AI is probably smarter than all hum…
> AI will probably be smarter than any single human next year. Arguably that's already so. There's no clear single dimension for "smart"; even within exact sciences, I wouldn't know how to judge e.g. "Who was smarter, Einstein or Von Neumann?". But for any particular "smarts competition", especially if it's time limited, I'd expect Claude 4.5 Opus and Gemini 3 Pro to get higher scores than any single human.
> What I needed was not a better app, but a way to tolerate imperfection without the whole system falling apart. > Claude did not invent that idea. It executed it. > Claude handled implementation. I handled taste. This style of writing always gets me now :)
This style of writing isnt human. Its AI. ^^ These dramatic statements are almost always AI influenced, I seem to always see them in people's emails now as well. "we didnt reinvent the wheel. we are the wheel."
It's amusing that the author might feel a sense of accomplishment and super powers when in fact this is a complete moo point in terms of real gain and a tool of entertainment (consumption) and not productivity as original intended.
There is a silver line in there, for the people that care about software.
I wanted to try a Show HN as well but I feared that the HN crowd would tear it and me down so... I didn't.
[1] check my comments history
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but if you wrote some massive corpus of code with no testing it probably would not compile either. I think if you want to make this a useful experiment you should use one of the coding assistants that can test and iterate on its code, not some chatbot which is optimized to impress nontechnical people while being as cheap as possible to run.
>> Chatbot which is optimized to impress nontechnical people Is that how we call Opus 4.5 now? :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI will probably be smarter than any single human next year. Arguably that's already so. There's no clear single dimension for "smart"; even within exact sciences, I wouldn't know how to judge e.g. "Who was smarter, Einstein or Von Neumann?". But for any particular "smarts competition", especially if it's time limited, I'd expect Claude 4.5 Opus and Gemini 3 Pro to get higher scores than any single human.
So we are back to the original comment that generated this thread: why hasn't AI generated a new and better compression algorithm, for example?
Hear me out: let's say that generating a new and better compression algorithm is something that might take a dedicated researcher about a year of their life, and that person is being paid to work on it, in the industry or via a grant. Is there anyone who has been running Claude Code instances for a human-year in a loop with the instruction to try different approaches until it has a better compression algorithm?
> I own more books than I can read. > I started asking for things I did not need. For a community that prides itself on depth of conversation, ideas, etc. I'm surprised to so much praise for a post like this. I'll be the skeptic. What does it bring to you to vibe code your vibe shelf? To me, this project perfectly encapsulates the uselessness of AI, small projects like this are good learning or relearning experience…
I don't think you fully understood the purpose of the project. He wanted an end product (the bookshelf app) that he had been putting off due to the time commitment. He did not say he wanted to learn about how to program in general, nor did he even say he liked programming. People care about results and the end product. If you like to program as a hobby, LLMs in no way stop you from doing this. At the end of the day,…
As for the main concern in your comment, I did in fact read the blog post; see how I quoted multiple parts, verbatim ("word for word")?. I now understand this audience may not be entirely familiar with literature or reading beyond basic instructions from their preferred datacenter or advertising company, but generally the beginning of a piece of writing (the "introduction") serves as the premise while the end (the "conclusion") describes the abstract ideas a reader should take away from the entire piece. I'll even let you in on a little secret: the word "conclusion" is synonymous with "a judgement following logical steps". As I mentioned in my original comment there is also a middle section which can often be more important or meaningful (to both characters and readers) than the introduction or conclusion. Howver, in this piece of writing it amounted to "I didn't know how to do something so I asked AI and when it didn't do the right thing I asked it again" which isn't a very engaging story (there's a similar famous premise about an "oracle" that can respond to three "queries", however the entertainment relies on this limitation). Anyways, the badic premise seems to be well received already and lacking any interesting description of the process, I chose to engage with the conclusion. The question of taste.
The author believes, or rather instructed an LLM to generate an article from the perspective in which someone belives, generative AI can enable the good taste of someone in prototype hell to come to fruition. But in my original comment I'm making the point that creating something of good taste is inextricably linked to engagement with the medium. But the author shows a willful lack of engagement, with their medium whether that be software or a book shelf.
If you'd like to engage with my original comment in good faith, here are some questions: * do you really think this project constitutes good taste? for software? for book shelves? * can someone with an apathy for a craft as extreme the author have good taste? * might this even be considered bad taste given the technological sensibilities of this forum? (disdain for js bloat, foss, "elegant solutions")
I'm not sure anyone commented on this but the usability of what he vibe produced is absolutely terrible. It's amusing that the author might feel a sense of accomplishment and super powers when in fact this is a complete moo point in terms of real gain and a tool of entertainment (consumption) and not productivity as original intended. There is a silver line in there, for the people that care about software.
Like a cows opinion - it doesn't matter?
> this is...a tool of entertainment (consumption) and not productivity as original intended.
And? I wrote BASIC as a kid, and everything I coded was for entertainment, not productivity.
The usability for him appears high. If you're building a tool just for yourself (or or fun), why does it matter?
“Claude handled implementation. I handled taste.” This is the right mindset.