Live data from Hacker News

I miss thinking hard

jernesto.com

151–160 of 764 posts

Re: I miss thinking hard

#151
The sampling rate we use to take input information is fixed. And we always find a way to work with the sampled information, no matter if the input information density is high or low.

We can play a peaceful game and a intense one.

Now, when we think, we can always find a right level of abstract to think on. Decades ago a programmer thought with machine codes, now we think with high level concepts, maybe towards philosophy.

A good outcome always requires hard thinking. We can and we WILL think hard at a appropriate level.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#152
post #132
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like these are why I don't browse HN nearly ever anymore

Nothing new. Whenever a new layer of abstraction is added, people say it's worse and will never be as good as the old way. Though it's a totally biased opinion, we just have issues with giving up things we like as human being.

[deleted]

Re: I miss thinking hard

#153
One thing this discussion made me realize is that "thinking hard" might not be a single mode of thinking.

In grad school, I had what I'd call the classic version. I stayed up all night mentally working on a topology question about turning a 2-torus inside out. I already knew you can't flip a torus inside out in ordinary R^3 without self-intersection. So I kept moving and stretching the torus and the surrounding space in my head, trying to understand where the obstruction actually lived.

Sometime around sunrise, it clicked that if you allow the move to go through infinity(so effectively S^3), the inside/outside distinction I was relying on just collapses, and the obstruction I was visualizing dissolves. Birds were chirping, I hadn't slept, and nothing useful came out of it, but my internal model of space felt permanently upgraded. That's clearly "thinking hard" in the sense.

But there's another mode I've experienced that feels related but different. With a tough Code Golf problem, I might carry it around for a week. I'm not actively grinding on it the whole time, but the problem stays loaded in the background. Then suddenly, in the shower or on a walk, a compression trick or a different representation just clicks.

That doesn't feel "hard" moment to moment. It's more like keeping a problem resident in memory long enough for the right structure to surface.

One is concentrated and exhausting, the other is diffuse and slow-burning. They're different phenomenologically, but both feel like forms of deep engagement that are easy to crowd out.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#154
post #63

I don't get it. I think just as hard, I type less. I specify precisely and I review. If anything, all we've changed is working at a higher level. The product is the same. But these people just keep mixing things up like "wow I got a ferrari now, watch it fly off the road!" Yeah so you got a tools upgrade; it's faster, it's more powerful. Keep it on the road or give up driving! We went from auto completing keywords, t…

It is simple. Continuing your metaphor, I have a choice of getting exactly where I want on a camel in 3 days, or getting to a random location somewhere on the other side of the desert on a helicopter in few hours.

And being a reasonable person I, just like the author, choose the helicopter. That's it, that's the whole problem.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#155

I haven't reduced my thinking! Today I asked AI to debug an issue. It came with a solution that it was clearly correct, but it didn't explain why the code was in that state. I kept steering AI (which just wanted to fix) toward figuring out the why and it digged through git and github issue at some point,in a very cool way. And finally it pulled out something that made sense. It was defensive programming introduced to…

>I haven't reduced my thinking!

You just detailed an example of where you did in fact reduce your thinking.

Managers who tell people what to get done do not think about the problem.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#156
post #67

People here seem to be conflating thinking hard and thinking a lot. Most examples mentioned of “thinking hard” in the comments sound like they think about a lot of stuff superficially instead one particular problem deeply, which is what OP is referring to.

If you actually have a problem worth thinking deeply about, AI usually can’t help with it. For example, AI can’t help you make performant stencil buffers on a Nokia Ngage for fun. It just doesn’t have that in it. Plenty of such problems abound, especially in domains involving some or the other extreme (like high throughput traffic). Just the other day someone posted a vibe coded Wikipedia project that took ages to load (despite being “just” 66MB) and insisted it was the best it was possible to do, whereas Google can load the entire planet (perceptually) in a fraction of a second.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#158
I always search the web, ask others, or read books in order to find a solution. When I do not find an answer from someone else, that's where I have to think hard.

Re: I miss thinking hard

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when programming with agentic tools, you need to actively push for the idea to not regress to the most obvious/average version. The amount of effort you need to expend on pushing the idea that deviates from the 'norm' (because it's novel), is actually comparable to the effort it takes to type something out by hand. Just two completely different types of effort. There's an upside to this sort of effort too, though…

> need to make it crystal clear That's not an upside in that it's unique to LLM vs human written code. When writing it yourself, you also need to make it crystal clear. You do that in the language of implementation.

[deleted]

Re: I miss thinking hard

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Cameras have not replaced paintings, assuming this is the inference. > You wouldn't have known that, going by all the bellyaching and whining from the artists of the day. > Guess what, they got over it. You conveniently omitted my next sentence, which contradicts your position and reads thusly: Instead, they serve only to be an additional medium for the same concerns quoted ... > You will too. This statement is as…

Username checks out, at least.

Logic needs to be shown the door on occasion. Sometimes via the help of an ole Irish bar toss.
Post reply on HN