Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

81–90 of 332 posts

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

#81
post #70

Wouldn't be the trick to let AI code the app on first requests and then let it run the code instead of have it always generate everything? This should combine the best of both worlds.

Right– write the application by using it. Pave the paths that work the way you want.

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

#82
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…

>Can you set some timers for my sport session, can you plan a pure body weight session ? Yes, that's perfect. Wait, actually, remove the jumping jacks."

Better yet, why exercise -which is so repetitive- if we can create a machine that just does it for you, including the dopamine triggering, why play an arcade video game where we can create a machine that fires the neuron needed to produce the exact same level of a excitement than the best video game.

And why find mates when my robot can morph into any woman in the world, or better yet, the brain implants that trigger the exact same feelings than having sex and love.

Bleak, we are oversimplifying existence itself and it doesn't lead to a nice place.

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

#85
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I interpreted it like "why don't we simply eat the orphans"? It kind of works but it's absurd, so it's funny. I didn't think about it too hard though, because I'm on a computer.

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

#86
post #57

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.

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

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

#87

The 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?

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…

> Average humans are pretty great at solving a certain class of complex problems that we tried to tackle unsuccessfully with many millions lines of deterministic code..

Are you suggesting that an average user would want to precisely describe in detail what they want, every single time, instead of clicking on a link that gives them what they want?

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

#88
Neat! Let's take this at face value for a second. The generated code, and html can be written to disk. This way as the application progresses it is built. Plus you only ever build the parts that are needed.

Somehow it will also help you decide what is needed as an mvp. Instead of building everything you think you will need, you get only what you need. But if I use someone elses application running this repo, the first thing I'll do is go to /admin/users/all

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

#90
Cool demo—running everything through a single LLM per request surfaces the real bottlenecks. A practical tweak is an agentic/multi‑agent pattern: have a planner synthesize a stable schema+UI spec (IR) once and cache it, then use small executor agents to call tools deterministically with constrained decoding; run validation/rendering in parallel, stream partial UI, and use a local model for cheap routing. That distributed, parallel agentic AI setup slashes tokens and latency while stabilizing UI across requests. You still avoid hand‑written code, but the system converges on reusable plans instead of re‑deriving them each time.
Post reply on HN