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

Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

martinfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 422 posts

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#191

Post by skydhash »

tptacek wrote: post #188
skydhash wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid programs are almost infinite. Context free grammars (which describe valid programs) are generative. When you're programming, you are mostly restricting the set of valid program to include only the few that satisfy the specs. Adding an extra 0 to a number is valid, but put that in the context of money transactions, it's a "hell breaks loose" situation. SO that's why "it compiles" is worthless in a business setti…

It feels like you stopped reading before "and then a further subset of those". Again: my claim is simply that whatever else is going on, the halting problem doesn't enter into it, because the user in this scenario isn't obligated to prove arbitrary programs. Here, I can solve the halting problem right now: "only accept branchless programs with finite numbers of instructions". Where's my Field Medal? :) It always feel…

> It feels like you stopped reading before "and then a further subset of those".

Pretty sure you've just edited to add that part.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#192

Post by tptacek »

skydhash wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like you stopped reading before "and then a further subset of those". Again: my claim is simply that whatever else is going on, the halting problem doesn't enter into it, because the user in this scenario isn't obligated to prove arbitrary programs. Here, I can solve the halting problem right now: "only accept branchless programs with finite numbers of instructions". Where's my Field Medal? :) It always feel…

> It feels like you stopped reading before "and then a further subset of those". Pretty sure you've just edited to add that part.

No, I'd have indicated that in my comment if I had. Sorry, I think you just missed it.

I did add the last paragraph of the comment you just responded to (the one immediately above this) about 5 seconds after I submitted it, though. Doesn't change the thread.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#193

Post by andoando »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #123
furyofantares wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These metaphors all suck. Well, ok, yours is funny. But anyway, LLMs are just very different from any human. They are extremely shallow, even compared to a junior developer. But extremely broad, even compared to the most experienced developer. They type real fuckin fast compared to anyone on earth, but they need to be told what to do much more carefully than anyone on earth.

I've gotten Claude Code to make CUDA kernels and all kinds of advanced stuff that there's zero percent chance a junior would pull off. AI is like a super advanced senior wearing a blindfold. It knows almost everything, it's super fast, and it gets confused pretty quickly about things after you tell it.

And today I asked Claude code to carefully look at and follow the structure of my tests and write some more, and after 5-10 mins it completely ignored it, wrote one class with all the helper methods and a bunch of compilation errors from fields that arent even in my model.

I figured there's probably a ton more logical issues and deleted it immediately

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#194

Post by skydhash »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #189
skydhash wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid programs are almost infinite. Context free grammars (which describe valid programs) are generative. When you're programming, you are mostly restricting the set of valid program to include only the few that satisfy the specs. Adding an extra 0 to a number is valid, but put that in the context of money transactions, it's a "hell breaks loose" situation. SO that's why "it compiles" is worthless in a business setti…

I have LLMs generate Haskell. Having the code compile means everything type checks and is not worthless. That's a huge constraint on valid programs.

> Having the code compile means everything type checks and is not worthless. That's a huge constraint on valid programs.

In a business settings, what usually matter is getting something into prod and not have bug reports thrown back. And a maintainable code that is not riddled down with debts.

Compiled code is as basic as steering left and right for a F1 driver. Having the tests pass is like driving the car at slow speed and completing a lap with no other cars around. If you're struggling to do that, then you're still in the beginner phase and not a professional. The real deal is getting a change request from Product and and getting it to Production.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#195

Post by bongodongobob »

achierius wrote: post #161
bongodongobob wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of these people. For my scripting needs, it would probably take me longer to find the script I saved rather than just asking it again and getting an answer in 15 seconds. I haven't saved a smallish script in a year.

I used to be one of those people, then I started saving these scripts in a folder and realized just how much time it saved me. Especially for nontrivial scripts which require a lot of typing or input specification.

This was me before LLMs. Had tons of scripts saved. I just don't see the point anymore "Take this list of users, remove from x group and reset their passwords" takes less time than trying to remember what I named that file and where it's saved. Anything that can be done in under 100 lines isn't worth saving anymore.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#196

Post by jonoc »

keeda wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that framing, you can look at an agent as simply a filter on those hallucinations.

More of a error-correcting feedback loop rather than a filter, really. Which is very much what we do as humans, apparently. One recent theory of neuroscience that is becoming influential is Predictive Processing -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding -- this postulates that we also constantly generate a "mental model" of our environment (a literal "prediction") and use sensory inputs to correct and update…

thats a fascinating way to put it

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#197

Post by root_axis »

furyofantares wrote: post #99
nicwolff wrote: post #81

> I’ve often heard, with decent reason, an LLM compared to a junior colleague. No, they're like an extremely experienced and knowledgeable senior colleague – who drinks heavily on the job. Overconfident, forgetful, sloppy, easily distracted. But you can hire so many of them, so cheaply, and they don't get mad when you fire them!

These metaphors all suck. Well, ok, yours is funny. But anyway, LLMs are just very different from any human. They are extremely shallow, even compared to a junior developer. But extremely broad, even compared to the most experienced developer. They type real fuckin fast compared to anyone on earth, but they need to be told what to do much more carefully than anyone on earth.

I think we had the analogy right with "fancy autocomplete". Sometimes, the completions are excellent and do exactly what we want, other times the completions fail to match our expectations and need human attention. It's a tool.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#198

Post by godelski »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #163
achierius wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised at what juniors can pull off. I have seen fresh-out-of-college new grads write performant GPU kernels that are used in real world library implementations for particular architectures.

Most of the juniors I've worked with would make numerical errors and give up/declare premature victory before getting the implementation to a robust state. I'm sure there are exceptional young folks out there though.

  > Most of the juniors
Most senior programmers can't write CUDA kernels either. Even fewer can write ones that are any good.

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#199

Post by muldvarp »

catigula wrote: post #17

>I’m often asked, “what is the future of programming?” Should people consider entering software development now? Will LLMs eliminate the need for junior engineers? Should senior engineers get out of the profession before it’s too late? My answer to all these questions is “I haven’t the foggiest” I just want to point out that this answer implicitly means that, at the very least, the profession is at least questionably…

The answers are even kind of contradictory. If the answer to "will we ever need software engineers again in the future?" is "we don't know" then the answer to "should I spend time and money to enter software engineering?" should be "no".

Re: Some thoughts on LLMs and software development

#200

Post by PessimalDecimal »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #186
furyofantares wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These metaphors all suck. Well, ok, yours is funny. But anyway, LLMs are just very different from any human. They are extremely shallow, even compared to a junior developer. But extremely broad, even compared to the most experienced developer. They type real fuckin fast compared to anyone on earth, but they need to be told what to do much more carefully than anyone on earth.

> but they need to be told what to do much more carefully than anyone on earth. have you ever managed an offshore team. holy cow

"Offshore team." "Holy cow." I see what you did there.
Post reply on HN