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

Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

mintlify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#101

Post by chme »

michaelmior wrote: post #99
chme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md'. Because a developer can just use a LLM to generate a 'install.sh', validate that, and put it into the repo? Good idea. That seems sensible. Bonus: LLM is only used once, not every time anyone wants to install some software. With some risks of having to regenerate, because the output was nonsensical.

> What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md' I think the point was that install.md is a good way to generate an install.sh. > validate that, and put it into the repo The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.

> The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.

The user is free to use a LLM to 'validate' the `install.sh` file. Just asking it if the script does anything 'bad'. That should be similarly successful as the LLM generating the script based on a description. Maybe even more successful.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#102

Post by falloutx »

michaelmior wrote: post #99
chme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md'. Because a developer can just use a LLM to generate a 'install.sh', validate that, and put it into the repo? Good idea. That seems sensible. Bonus: LLM is only used once, not every time anyone wants to install some software. With some risks of having to regenerate, because the output was nonsensical.

> What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md' I think the point was that install.md is a good way to generate an install.sh. > validate that, and put it into the repo The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.

I still dont understand why we need any of them. If I am installing something, It would take me more time to write this install.md or install.sh than if I just went to the correct website and copied the command, see the contents, run it and opening help.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#105

Post by akomtu »

petekoomen wrote: post #54
smaudet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This install script is hundreds of lines long Any script can be shortened by hiding commands in other commands. LLMs run parameters in the billions. Lines of code, as usual, is an incredibly poor metric to go by here.

My point is not that LLMs are inherently trustworthy. It is that a prompt can make the intentions of the programmer clear in a way that is difficult to do with code because code is hard to read, especially in large volumes.

The solution, then, is to add comments to every difficult line of code and have an LLM check that comments match the code. Then you get precision and reliability of machine language + readability of human language

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#106

Post by akomtu »

dang wrote: post #67
4b11b4 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "the way you describe a program _can_ be the program" One follow-up thought I had was... It may actually be... more difficult(?) to go from a program to a great description

That's a chance to plump for Peter Naur's classic "Programming as Theory Building"! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... What Naur meant by "theory" was the mental model of the original programmers who understood why they wrote it that way. He argued the real program was is theory, not the code. The translation of the theory in…

That theory, or mental model, is a lot like a program, but of a higher kind. A mental model answers the question: what if I do this or that? It can answer this question with a different level of detail, unlike the program that must be executed completely. The language of a mental model is also different: it talks in terms of constraints and invariants, while the program is a step-by-step guide.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#107

Post by akomtu »

utopiah wrote: post #87

Yes... yes let's make tasks we rely on LESS predictable. Sorry but what the heck? We should NOT standardize irresponsible behavior, in particular for repeatable tasks. This is particularly maddening when solutions like dependency resolution, containers, distribution of self-contained and binaries DO exist. I understand that the hype machine must feed on yet another idea to keep its momentum but this is just ridiculou…

This innocent looking idea represents a shift in mentality: embracing laziness and giving up control to AI. And the latter needs to offer surprisingly little.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#109

Post by rswail »

dang wrote: post #67
4b11b4 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "the way you describe a program _can_ be the program" One follow-up thought I had was... It may actually be... more difficult(?) to go from a program to a great description

That's a chance to plump for Peter Naur's classic "Programming as Theory Building"! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... What Naur meant by "theory" was the mental model of the original programmers who understood why they wrote it that way. He argued the real program was is theory, not the code. The translation of the theory in…

"The map is not the territory" applies to AI/LLMs even more so.

LLMs don't have a "mental model" of anything.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#110

Post by dang »

rswail wrote: post #109
dang wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a chance to plump for Peter Naur's classic "Programming as Theory Building"! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... What Naur meant by "theory" was the mental model of the original programmers who understood why they wrote it that way. He argued the real program was is theory, not the code. The translation of the theory in…

"The map is not the territory" applies to AI/LLMs even more so. LLMs don't have a "mental model" of anything.

But if the person writing the prompt is expressing their mental model at a higher level, and the code can be generated from that, the resulting artifact is, by Naur's theory, a more accurate representation of the actual program. That would be a big deal.

(Note the words "if" and "by Naur's theory".)

Post reply on HN