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

GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 742 posts

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#241

Post by dartos »

imiric wrote: post #125
dartos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Claude consistently impresses me. A commenter on another thread mentioned it but it’s very similar to how search felt in the early 2000s. I ask it a question and get my answer. Sometimes it’s a little (or a lot) wrong or outdated, but at least I get something to tinker with.

I recently tried to ask these tools for help with using a popular library, and both GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet gave highly misleading and unusable suggestions. They consistently hallucinated APIs that didn't exist, and would repeat the same wrong answers, ignoring my previous instructions. I spent upwards of 30 minutes repeating "now I get this error" to try to coax them in the right direction, but always ending up…

FWIW I almost never ask it to write code for me. I did once to write a matplotlib script and it gave me a similar headache.

I ask it questions mostly about libraries I’m using (usually that have poor documentation) and how to integrate it with other libraries.

I found out about Yjs by asking about different operational transform patterns.

Got some context on the prosemirror plugin by pasting the entire provider class into Claude and asking questions.

It wasn’t always exactly correct, but it was correct enough that it made the process of learning prosemirror, yjs, and how they interact pretty nice.

The “complete” examples it kept spitting out were totally wrong, but the information it gave me was not.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#242

Post by olivermuty »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #229
thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

Time will tell. As a GitHub Copilot user, I still review the code. SpaceX's advancements are impressive, from rocket blow up to successfully catching the Starship booster. Who knows what AI will be capable of in 5-10 years? Perhaps it will revolutionize code assistance or even replace developers

Except cursor is the fireworks based on black powder here. It will look good, but as a technology to get you to the moon it seems to look like a dead end. NOTHING (of serious science) seems to indicate LLMs being anything but a dead end with the current hardware capabilites.

So then I ask: What, in qualitative terms, makes you think AI in the current form will be capable of this in 5 or 10 years? Other than seeing the middle of what seems to be an S-curve and going «ooooh shiny exponential!»

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#243

Post by zeknife »

logicchains wrote: post #197
mensetmanusman wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trillion dimensional stochastic parrot is still a stochastic parrot. If these systems showed understanding we would notice. No one is denying that this form of intelligence is useful.

I don't know how you can say they lack understanding of the world when in pretty much any standardised test designed to measure human intelligence they perform better than the average human. They only thing that don't understand is touch because they're not trained on that, but they can already understand audio and video.

You said it, those tests are designed to measure human intelligence, because we know that there is a correspondence between test results and other, more general tasks - in humans. We do not know that such a correspondence exists with language models. I would actually argue that they demonstrably do not, since even an LLM that passes every IQ test you put in front of it can still trip up on trivial exceptions that wouldn't fool a child.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#245

Post by delduca »

I don’t like using AI assistants in my editor; I prefer to keep it as clean as possible. So, I manually copy relevant parts of the code into ChatGPT, ask my question, and continue interacting until I get what I need. It’s a bit manual, but since I use GPT for other tasks, it’s convenient to have a single interface for everything.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#246

Post by bob1029 »

thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

It's the subtle errors that are really difficult to navigate. I got burned for about 40 hours on a conditional being backward in the middle of an otherwise flawless method.

The apparent speed up is mostly a deception. It definitely helps with rough outlines and approaches. But, the faster you go, the less you will notice the fine details, and the more assumptions you will accumulate before realizing the fundamental error.

I'd rather find out I was wrong within the same day. I'd probably have written some unit tests and played around with that function a lot more if I had handcrafted it.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#248

Post by dartos »

zeknife wrote: post #236
dageshi wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was the switch from desktop search traffic being dominant to mobile traffic being dominant, that switch happened around the end of 2016. Google used to prioritise big comprehensive articles on subjects for desktop users but mobile users just wanted quick answers, so that's what google prioritised as they became the biggest users. But also, per your point, I think those smaller simpler less comprehensive po…

Ironically, I almost never see quick answers in the top results, mostly it's dragged out pages of paragraph after paragraph with ads inbetween.

Guess who sells the ads…

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#249

Post by hi41 »

gregschlom wrote: post #211
hi41 wrote: post #208

That’s a strange usage of the word “cuts”. I thought GitHub terminated the deals with Google and Anthropic. It would be better if the title were GitHub signs AI deals instead of cuts.

I'm assuming you're not a native speaker? (I'm not) - "to cut a deal" is a fairly common idiom that means to reach and agreement.

That’s correct. Not a native speaker. I am not well versed with slang words. I am sometimes embarrassed because I speak as if they are words from a book instead of sounding like spoken words. Do you know how cuts came to mean that it’s a deal. For a non-native speaker it means the exact opposite thing as in “he cut a wire”. Language evolves in strange ways.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#250

Post by TeMPOraL »

olivermuty wrote: post #242
MangoCoffee wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time will tell. As a GitHub Copilot user, I still review the code. SpaceX's advancements are impressive, from rocket blow up to successfully catching the Starship booster. Who knows what AI will be capable of in 5-10 years? Perhaps it will revolutionize code assistance or even replace developers

Except cursor is the fireworks based on black powder here. It will look good, but as a technology to get you to the moon it seems to look like a dead end. NOTHING (of serious science) seems to indicate LLMs being anything but a dead end with the current hardware capabilites. So then I ask: What, in qualitative terms, makes you think AI in the current form will be capable of this in 5 or 10 years? Other than seeing th…

> NOTHING (of serious science) seems to indicate LLMs being anything but a dead end with the current hardware capabilites.

In the same sense that black powder sucks as a rocket propellant - but it's enough to demonstrate that iterating on the same architecture and using better fuels will get you to the Moon eventually. LLMs of today are starting points, and many ideas for architectural improvements are being explored, and nothing in serious science suggests that will be a dead end any time soon.

Post reply on HN