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

61–70 of 332 posts

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

#61

Post by finnborge »

julianlam wrote: post #24

I can't wait to build against an API whose outputs can radically change by the second! Usually I have to wait for the company running the API to push breaking changes without warning.

In N years the idea of requiring a rigid API contract between systems may be as ridiculous as a Panda being unable to understand that Bamboo is food unless it is planted in the ground.

Abstractly, who cares what format the information is shared in? If it is complete, the rigidity of the schema *could* be irrelevant (in a future paradigm). Determinism is extremely helpful (and maybe vitally necessary) but, as I think this intends to demonstrate, *could* just be articulated as a form of optimization.

Fluid interpretation of API results would already be useful but is impossibly problematic. How many of us already spend meaningful amounts of time "cleaning" data?

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

#62

Post by finnborge »

hyko wrote: post #18

The 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 dashboar…

At this extreme, I think we'd end up relying on backup snapshots. Faulty outcomes are not debugged. They, and the ecosystem that produced them, are just erased. The ecosystem is then returned to its previous state.

Kind of like saving a game before taking on a boss. If things go haywire, just reload. Or maybe like cooking? If something went catastrophically wrong, just throw it out and start from the beginning (with the same tools!)

And I think the only way to even halfway mitigate the vulnerability concern is to identify that this hypothetical system can only serve a single user. Exactly 1 intent. Totally partitioned/sharded/isolated.

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

#63

Post by finnborge »

_se wrote: post #49
myhf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designing a system with deterministic behavior would require the developer to think. Human-Computer Interaction experts agree that a better policy is to "Don't Make Me Think" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_Me_Think

This is such a massive misunderstanding of the book. Have you even read it? The developer needs to think so that the user doesn't have to...

My most charitable interpretation of the perceived misunderstanding is that the intent was to frame developers as "the user."

This project would be the developer tool used to produce interactive tools for end users.

More practically, it just redefines the developer's position; the developer and end-user are both "users". So the developer doesn't need to think AND the user doesn't need to think.

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

#64

Post by andoando »

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…

Ive been imagining the same thing. Were kinda there with MCPs. Just needs full OS integration. Or I suppose you can write a bunch of clis and have LLM call them locally

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

#65

Post by jes5199 »

huh okay, so, prediction: similar to how interpreted code eventually was given JIT so that it could be as fast as compiled code, eventually the LLMs will build libs of disposable helper functions as they work, which will look a lot like “writing code”. but we’ll stop thinking about it that way

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

#66

Post by finnborge »

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 think this is well illustrated in a lot of science fiction. Irregular or abstract tasks are fairly efficiently articulated in speech, just like the ones you provided. Simpler, repetitive ones are not. Imagine having to ask your shower to turn itself on? Or your doors to open?

Contextualized to "web-apps," as you have; navigating a list maybe requires an interface. It would be fairly tedious to differentiate between, for example, the 30 pairs of pants your computer has shown you after you asked "help me buy some pants" without using a UI (ok maybe eye-tracking?).

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

#67

Post by hinkley »

113 wrote: post #57
jstummbillig wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody actually wants a "web app". People want food, love, sex or: solutions. You or your coworker are not a web app. You can do some of the things that web apps can, and many things that a web app can't, but neither is because of the modality. Coded determinism is hard for many problems and I find it entirely plausible that it could turn out to be the wrong approach in software, that is designed to solve som…

> 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.

Christine didn’t end well for anyone.

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

#68

Post by lazide »

113 wrote: post #57
jstummbillig wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody actually wants a "web app". People want food, love, sex or: solutions. You or your coworker are not a web app. You can do some of the things that web apps can, and many things that a web app can't, but neither is because of the modality. Coded determinism is hard for many problems and I find it entirely plausible that it could turn out to be the wrong approach in software, that is designed to solve som…

> 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.

Even if it purred real nice when it started up? (I’m sorry)

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

#69

Post by jstummbillig »

113 wrote: post #57
jstummbillig wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody actually wants a "web app". People want food, love, sex or: solutions. You or your coworker are not a web app. You can do some of the things that web apps can, and many things that a web app can't, but neither is because of the modality. Coded determinism is hard for many problems and I find it entirely plausible that it could turn out to be the wrong approach in software, that is designed to solve som…

> 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.

Most of us actually drive a car to get somewhere. The car, and the driving, are just a modality. Which is the point.
Post reply on HN