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

Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#851

Post by Wowfunhappy »

esafak wrote: post #585
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there is a section of programmer who actually do like the actual typing of letters, numbers and special characters into a computer, and for them, I understand LLMs remove the fun part. I've "vibe coded" a ton of stuff and so I'm pretty bullish on LLMs, but I don't see a world where "coding by hand" isn't still required for at least some subset of software. I don't know what that subset will be, but I'm conv…

I don't see how an AGI coder will end scarcity; it will simply debase knowledge work. Physical things we need, like housing, are still scarce.

The AGI can build robots that build houses. It has a virtually unlimited amount of working time to dedicate to the robotics engineering problems.

We'd still be limited to some extent by raw materials and land but it would be much less significant.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#852

Post by g947o »

Why is this article getting so many upvotes? It follows the same pattern --

I was able to use [AI codong agent] to achieve [task], [task] and [task] within [time]. It would not be possible to do that without it.

[My thoughts about this]

Which is the same as dozens if not hundreds of similar articles already posted here, and the comments in the discussion don't explore any new perspectives either.

I honestly don't understand why people still write and discuss these articles. While I understand the need for personal expression, nothing you possibly say is new.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#853

Post by CuriouslyC »

__float wrote: post #593
CuriouslyC wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to what you mean by sub par code. If you're talking a mess of bubblesorts and other algorithmic problems, that's probably a prompting issue. If you're talking "I just don't like the style of the code, it looks inelegant" that's not really a prompting issue, models will veer towards common patterns in a way that's hard to avoid with prompts. Think about it like compiler output. Literally nobody c…

There's a huge amount you're missing by boiling down their complaint to "bubble sorts or inelegant code". The architecture of the new code, how it fits into the existing system, whether it makes use of existing utility code (IMO this is a huge downside; LLMs seem to love to rewrite a little helper function 100x over), etc. These are all important when you consider the long-term viability of a change. If you're workin…

There's certainly coupled, obtuse, contorted code styles that the LLM will be unable to twister itself into (which is different from the coupled, obtuse code it generates itself). Don't pretend this is good code though, own that you're up to your neck in shit.

LLMs are pretty good at modifying well factored code. If you have a functional modular monolith, getting agents to add new functions and compose them into higher order functionality works pretty darn well.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#854

Post by dns_snek »

jstummbillig wrote: post #835
totallykvothe wrote: post #569

I don't understand the stance that AI currently is able to automate away non-trivial coding tasks. I've tried this consistently since GPT 3.5 came out, with every single SOTA model up to GPT 5.1 Codex Max and Opus 4.5. Every single time, I get something that works, yes, but then when I start self-reviewing the code, preparing to submit it to coworkers, I end up rewriting about 70% of the thing. So many important deta…

> Every single time [...] I end up rewriting about 70% of the thing If that number has not significantly changed since GPT 3.5, I think it's safe to assume that something very weird is happening on your end.

I think I know what they mean, I share a similar experience. It has changed, 3.5 couldn't even attempt to solve non-trivial tasks so it was a 100% failure, now it's 70%.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#855

Post by smcl »

dist-epoch wrote: post #83
cmiles8 wrote: post #6

The “anti-AU hype” phrase oversimplifies what’s playing out at the moment. On the tech side, while things are a bit rough around the edges still the tech is very useful and isn’t going away. I honestly don’t see much disagreement there. The concern mostly comes from the business side… that for all the usefulness on the tech there is no clearly viable path that financially supports everything that’s going on. It’s a n…

People said the exact same thing about (numbers from memory, might be off): - when Google paid $1 bil for YouTube - when Facebook paid $1 bil for Instagram - when Facebook paid $1 bil for WhatsApp The same thing - these 3 companies make no money, and have no path to making money, and that the price paid was crazy and decoupled from any economics. Yet now, in hindsight, they look like brilliant business decisions.

While many people thought Facebook/Google paid too much for these companies, you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. That part about there being "no path to making money" is wrong - online advertising was a huge industry and only getting stronger and while YT/Insta/Whatsapp may have struggled as standalone companies it was clear they'd unlock an enormous amount of value as part of a bigger company that already had a strong foothold in advertising online.

It is not clear who, other than maybe someone like Microsoft, could actually acquire companies like OpenAI or Anthropic. They are orders of magnitude larger than the companies you mentioned in terms of what they are "worth" (haha) and even how much money they need just to keep the lights on, let alone turn any kind of profit.

Not to mention the logical fallacy at the core of your point - people said "the exact same[sic] thing" about YouTube, Instagram and Whatsapp ... therefore, what, it necessarily means these companies are the same? You realise that many of us talked like this about "the blockchain", and "the Metaverse" and about those stupid ape JPEGS and we were absolutely correct to do so.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#856

Post by lopatin »

nikita2206 wrote: post #802
lopatin wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At work, I have the same difficulty using AI as you. When working on deep Jiras that require a lot of domain knowledge, bespoke testing tools, but maybe just a few lines of actual code changes across a vast codebase, I have not been able to use it effectively. For personal projects on the other hand, it has expedited me what? 10x, 30x? It's not measurable. My output has been so much more than what would have been pos…

> deep Jiras that require a lot of domain knowledge, bespoke testing tools, but maybe just a few lines of actual code changes How do new hires onboard? Do you spend days of your own time guiding them in person, do they just figure things out on their own after a few quarters of working on small tickets, or are things documented? Basically AI, when working on a codebase, has the same level of context that a new hire w…

> Do you spend days of your own time guiding them in person, do they just figure things out on their own after a few quarters of working on small tickets

It is this rather than docs. I think you're absolutely right about our lack of documentation handicapping AI agents.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#857

Post by sandworm101 »

20k wrote: post #788
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-trivial coding tasks I’ve come back to the idea LLMs are super search engines. If you ask it a narrow, specific question, with one answer, you may well get the answer. For the “non-trivial” questions, there always will be multiple answers, and you’ll get from the LLM all of these depending on the precise words you use to prompt it. You won’t get the best answer, and in a complex scenario requiring highly recurs…

I wish LLMs were good at search. I've tried to evaluate them many times for their quality at answering research questions for astrophysics (specifically numerical relativity). If they were good at answering questions, I'd use them in a heartbeat Without exception, every technical question I've ever asked an LLM that I know the answer to, has been substantially wrong in some fashion. This makes it just.. absolutely us…

>> at answering research questions for astrophysics

I googled for "helium 3" yesterday. Google's AI answer said that helium 3 is "primarily sourced from the moon", as if we were actively mining it there already.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#858

Post by smcl »

reducesuffering wrote: post #726
dist-epoch wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People said the exact same thing about (numbers from memory, might be off): - when Google paid $1 bil for YouTube - when Facebook paid $1 bil for Instagram - when Facebook paid $1 bil for WhatsApp The same thing - these 3 companies make no money, and have no path to making money, and that the price paid was crazy and decoupled from any economics. Yet now, in hindsight, they look like brilliant business decisions.

They were even saying this about Uber just a couple years ago. Now Uber makes $15b a year

Uber are doing something entirely different though - they took a market which was proven to exist, created a product which worked then spent a decade being horribly unprofitable until they were the dominant player in that market. And even at their very worst they weren't losing as much money as OpenAI are. There's far too much hand-waving and dismissive "ah it'll be ok because Uber exist" going on among those who have bought into the AI hype cycle

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#859

Post by davidguetta »

totallykvothe wrote: post #569

I don't understand the stance that AI currently is able to automate away non-trivial coding tasks. I've tried this consistently since GPT 3.5 came out, with every single SOTA model up to GPT 5.1 Codex Max and Opus 4.5. Every single time, I get something that works, yes, but then when I start self-reviewing the code, preparing to submit it to coworkers, I end up rewriting about 70% of the thing. So many important deta…

I think you are not hardcore enough. I paste entire files or 2 3 files at once and ask to rewrite everything.

Then you rewiew it and in general have to ask to remove some stuff. And then it's (good enough). You have to accept to not nitpick some parts (like random functions being generated) as long as your test suite pass, otherwise of course you will end up rewritin everything

It also depends on your setting, some area (web vs AI vs robotics) can be more suited than other

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#860

Post by smcl »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #369
dist-epoch wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People said the exact same thing about (numbers from memory, might be off): - when Google paid $1 bil for YouTube - when Facebook paid $1 bil for Instagram - when Facebook paid $1 bil for WhatsApp The same thing - these 3 companies make no money, and have no path to making money, and that the price paid was crazy and decoupled from any economics. Yet now, in hindsight, they look like brilliant business decisions.

You listed only acquisitions that paid off and not the many, many more that didn't though.

I am not even clear how Whatsapp "paid off" for Facebook in any sense other than them being able to nip a potential competitor in the bud. I use Whatsapp but do not see a single advert there nor do I pay a single penny for it, and I suspect my situation is pretty typical. Presumably some people see ads or pay for some services but I've not, and I don't imagine there's that much money to be made in being the #1 platform for sharing "Good Morning" GIFs
Post reply on HN