51–60 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I think Rabbit is one of the most interesting startups around. If I could wave a wand and go pick any startup to go work at, it would be Rabbit.
Isn’t rabbit a scam? https://paulogpd.bearblog.dev/en-rabbit-r1-its-a-scam/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Until about 2005 it was code-on-device and run-on-device. The tools and languages were limited in absolute capabilities, but easy to understand and use. For about the past 20 years we've been in a total mess of code-on-device -> (nightmare of deployment complexity) -> run-on-cloud. We are finally entering the code-on-cloud and run-on-cloud stage. I'm hoping this will allow domain experts to more easily creat…
>We are finally entering the code-on-cloud and run-on-cloud stage. Sounds like an absolute nightmare for freedom and autonomy.
Seeing these announcements make me nervous. I feel like I found some sort of cheat code by using AI Studio for free. Seeing them build it out, makes me wonder when they are going to start charging for it. Though Grok has been very generous as an alternate. I guess there's a lot of good options out there. I'm just used to hitting limits most places, and not as good models.
I don't need it inserting console.logs and alert popups with holocaust denials and splash screens with fake videos of white genocide in my apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...as long as your application is only a few thousand lines of code. Context windows are still tiny by "real world app" standards, and this doesn't seem to be changing significantly.
I regularly put 50k LoC codebases in gemini, it has a 1M context window and actually uses it well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there will still need to be some kind of translation layer besides natural language. It's just not succinct enough (especially English, ew), especially where it matters like a rules engine. The thought of building something like an adjudication or payment system with a LLM sounds terrible.
You don't need to use natural language to write your rules engine. LLMs speak every language under the sun, real or made up. You could define your rules in Prolog if you wanted - that's just as effective a way to communicate them to an LLM as English. Or briefly describe some made-up DSL and then use that. For coding LLMs the goal is to have the LLM represent the logic clearly in whatever programming language it's us…
Ironically, for something like the parent suggested i.e. a rules engine, this is the main work.
They don't mention it in the demo but they should really take a page from Lovable and add a bidirectional sync to a git repository.
Seeing these announcements make me nervous. I feel like I found some sort of cheat code by using AI Studio for free. Seeing them build it out, makes me wonder when they are going to start charging for it. Though Grok has been very generous as an alternate. I guess there's a lot of good options out there. I'm just used to hitting limits most places, and not as good models.
> Though Grok has been very generous as an alternate. I don't need it inserting console.logs and alert popups with holocaust denials and splash screens with fake videos of white genocide in my apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularly put 50k LoC codebases in gemini, it has a 1M context window and actually uses it well.
I've had the opposite experience. If I give it that much context it starts to hallucinate parts of the application that it very much has access to look up. This only starts happening at large context windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bosses reading this: "this is brilliant! I'll assign multiple teams to the same project. Let the best team win! And then the other teams get PIP'd"
Technically it’s actually a good idea …if you do it before publicly releasing and spending marketing budget on both products, giving them a full software lifecycle and a dedicated user-base that no longer trusts you to keep things running. Honestly, even in that case it sucks to be a developer there knowing there’s a 50% chance that the work you did meant nothing.
Does it have to mean nothing? If there is a review at the end of the exercise, good parts from each of the teams can be explored for integration to build the best final product. Of course all these things are probably as much political as technical so it is always complicated.