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

Code is cheap. Show me the talk

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#141

Post by chr15m »

acedTrex wrote: post #124
overgard wrote: post #123

I asked Codex to write some unit tests for Redux today. At first glance it looked fine, and I continued on. I then went back to add a test by hand, and after looking more closely at the output there were like 50 wtf worthy things scattered in there. Sure they ran, but it was bad in all sorts of ways. And this was just writing something very basic. This has been my experience almost every time I use AI: superficially…

I've always said every line is a liability, its our job to limit liabilities. That has largely gone out the window these days.

> every line is a liability, its our job to limit liabilities.

Hard agree!

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#142

Post by rrook »

tikhonj wrote: post #140

> crystal clear software development plan and the exact know-how to implement it This is simply not how expert programmers work. Programming is planning, and programming languages are surprisingly good planning tools . But, of course, becoming an expert is hard and requires not only some general aptitude but also substantial time, experience and effort. My theory is that this is a source of diverging views on LLMs fo…

> My theory is that this is a source of diverging views on LLMs for programming: people who see programming languages as tools for thought compared to people who see programming languages as, exclusively, tools to make computers do stuff. It's no surprise that the former would see more value in programming qua programming, while the latter are happy to sweep code under the rug.

i'd postulate this: most people see llms as tools for thought. programmers also see llms as tools for programming. some programmers, right now, are getting very good at both, and are binding the two together.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#143

Post by cs_sorcerer »

acedTrex wrote: post #124
overgard wrote: post #123

I asked Codex to write some unit tests for Redux today. At first glance it looked fine, and I continued on. I then went back to add a test by hand, and after looking more closely at the output there were like 50 wtf worthy things scattered in there. Sure they ran, but it was bad in all sorts of ways. And this was just writing something very basic. This has been my experience almost every time I use AI: superficially…

I've always said every line is a liability, its our job to limit liabilities. That has largely gone out the window these days.

Followed by even better is code is no code, and best is deleting code.

It’s one of those things which has always strikes me funny about programming is how less usually really is more

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#144

Post by akst »

overgard wrote: post #123

I asked Codex to write some unit tests for Redux today. At first glance it looked fine, and I continued on. I then went back to add a test by hand, and after looking more closely at the output there were like 50 wtf worthy things scattered in there. Sure they ran, but it was bad in all sorts of ways. And this was just writing something very basic. This has been my experience almost every time I use AI: superficially…

ATM I feel like LLM writing tests can be a bit dangerous at times, there are cases where it's fine there are cases where it's not. I don't really think I could articulate a systemised basis for identifying either case, but I know it when I see it I guess.

Like the the other day, I gave it a bunch of use cases to write tests for, the use cases were correct the code was not, it saw one of the tests broken so it sought to rewrite the test. You risking suboptimal results when an agent is dictating its own success criteria.

At one point I did try and use seperate Claude instances to write tests, then I'd get the other instance to write the implementation unaware of the tests. But it's a bit to much setup.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#146

Post by jaredcwhite »

Just because a bunch of people tell you the practice of performing the art form of producing software via handwriting code is over doesn't mean it's over. This form of hyperbole is intended to overwhelm your reason, get you to forget your own expertise, and trick you into engaging with the topic in a fearful manner (literally FOMO). Don't fall for this cheap stunt.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#147

Post by jaredcwhite »

rrook wrote: post #142
tikhonj wrote: post #140

> crystal clear software development plan and the exact know-how to implement it This is simply not how expert programmers work. Programming is planning, and programming languages are surprisingly good planning tools . But, of course, becoming an expert is hard and requires not only some general aptitude but also substantial time, experience and effort. My theory is that this is a source of diverging views on LLMs fo…

> My theory is that this is a source of diverging views on LLMs for programming: people who see programming languages as tools for thought compared to people who see programming languages as, exclusively, tools to make computers do stuff. It's no surprise that the former would see more value in programming qua programming, while the latter are happy to sweep code under the rug. i'd postulate this: most people see llm…

Most people? I'd suggest few people see LLMs as tools for thought and more that they're slop machines being cynically forced upon workers by capitalists with dollar signs in their eyes. Over and over and over again we see real-world studies showing that the people far more excited about genAI are managers than the people doing the actual work.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#148

Post by sethops1 »

stevofolife wrote: post #94
jdjeeee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is not the way we want learning to be - just like how students are banned from using calculators until they have mastered the foundational thinking.

Calculator don't tell you step by step. AI can.

Symbolic computation is a thing. How do you think wolfram alpha worked for 20 years before AI?

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#149

Post by jongjong »

My perspective is that AI is a multiplier if existing skill (both positive and negative aspects). A bad developer can now produce bad code at 10x the rate and a good developer can produce good code at 10x the rate.

There is a net positive gain on the automated testing side of things but I think a bad developer, even with AI will not be able to out-compete a good 10x developer without AI. The costs of incorrect abstractions is just too high and LLMs don't really help avoid those.

You have to ask the right questions. It's a bit like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... Where a super-intelligent computer took millions of years to calculate the meaning of life as the number 42. The wrong question will always waste computation.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#150

Post by HappMacDonald »

Buttons840 wrote: post #67
Waterluvian wrote: post #34

I think if your job is to assemble a segment of a car based on a spec using provided tools and pre-trained processes, it makes sense if you worry that giant robot arms might be installed to replace you. But if your job is to assemble a car in order to explore what modifications to make to the design, experiment with a single prototype, and determine how to program those robot arms, you’re probably not thinking about…

My job is to make people who have money think I'm indispensable to achieving their goals. There's a good chance AI can fake this well enough to replace me. Faking it would be good enough in an economy with low levels of competition; everyone can judge for themselves if this is our economy or not.

I mean it sounds to me like a beautiful corporate poison. :)
Post reply on HN