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

We mourn our craft

nolanlawson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 918 posts

Re: We mourn our craft

#751

Post by manmal »

autoexec wrote: post #723
sosomoxie wrote: post #10

I started programming over 40 years ago because it felt like computers were magic. They feel more magic today than ever before. We're literally living in the 1980s fantasy where you could talk to your computer and it had a personality. I can't believe it's actually happening, and I've never had more fun computing. I can't empathize with the complaint that we've "lost something" at all. We're on the precipice of somet…

> we're definitely in a golden age of computing. Certainly not. Computers are still magic, but much of that magic is now controlled and being restricted by someone other than you. Today most people's only computer is a cell phone, which is heavily locked down and designed for media consumption and to collect and give away every scrap of their personal/private data. Most people's desktop computers aren't much better.…

Models you can run on your own (expensive) computer are just a year behind the SOTA. Linux exists. Why are you so pessimistic?

Re: We mourn our craft

#752

Post by ChicagoDave »

sosomoxie wrote: post #10

I started programming over 40 years ago because it felt like computers were magic. They feel more magic today than ever before. We're literally living in the 1980s fantasy where you could talk to your computer and it had a personality. I can't believe it's actually happening, and I've never had more fun computing. I can't empathize with the complaint that we've "lost something" at all. We're on the precipice of somet…

This is exactly where I am with GenAI. After forty years: blocks of code, repository patterns, factory patterns, threading issues, documentation, one page executive summaries…

I can now direct these things and it’s glorious.

Re: We mourn our craft

#754

Post by geon »

pojzon wrote: post #733
EliRivers wrote: post #728

"They can write code better than you or I can" They can not. They can make some average code. On Friday one suggested an NSI installer script that would never bundle some needed files in the actual installer. I can only imagine that a lot of people have made the same mistake (used CopyFiles instead of File ) and posted that mistake on the internet. The true disaster of that being that then testing out that installer…

So it can write better code than your below average software engineer. It still cuts out 40-50% of workforce out. For above average engineers its very good. For bottom half not so much. Translate for Mgrs - it replaces offshore completely.

The "below average" engineers are largely the juniors and the programming non-programmers.

The juniors can't be replaced because all senior engineer were once junior.

The non-programmers won't be replaced because they are not really programmers to begin with, so there is nothing to replace.

Re: We mourn our craft

#755

Post by hnlmorg »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #714
abustamam wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know _how_ it works but even Anthropic routinely does research on its own models and gets surprised > We were often surprised by what we saw in the model https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...

Which is…true of all technologies since forever

Except it's not. Traditional algorithms are well understood because they're deterministic formulas. We know what the output is if we know the input. The surprises that happen with traditional algorithms are when they're applied in non-traditional scenarios as an experiment.

Whereas with LLMs, we get surprised even when using them in an expected way. This is why so much research happens investigating how these models work even after they've been released to the public. And it's also why prompt engineering can feel like black magic.

Re: We mourn our craft

#756

Post by throw1235435 »

an0malous wrote: post #703
tangotaylor wrote: post #625

I feel like most of the anxiety around LLMs is because (in the USA at least) our social safety net sucks. I'd probably have way more fun debating LLMs if it wasn't tied to my ability to pay rent, have healthcare, or feel like a valued person contributing something to society. If we had universal healthcare and a federal job guarantee it would probably calm things down.

Yes that's why most of the excited folks are VCs and software engineers who made their wealth already

What's more interesting is how the big names in our industry, the ones who already made their money as you say, have turned quickly since the end of 2025. I think even the most old school names can see that the writing is on the wall now.

Re: We mourn our craft

#757

Post by wasmainiac »

> If you would like to grieve, I invite you to grieve with me.

I’m not against AI in itself, but the current implementation (read market) can eat my shiny metal … I got kids to feed and bills to pay. Yes AI was all about post scarcity. Hiring in our industry is already feeling the brunt of AI, where is the UBI? Where is our soft landing? I’m too old to learn XYZ skill if I get laid off, it will be life changing, and for what? For some rich person to be richer while simultaneously destroying the climate and my energy bill?

I would push back, but I do not know how. Hope for the market to pop I guess.

Re: We mourn our craft

#758

Post by wizzwizz4 »

pocksuppet wrote: post #637
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I plugged "admitting a large number of uses" into OneLook Thesaurus ( https://www.onelook.com/thesaurus/?s=admitting%20a%20large%2... ), and it returned: > Best match is versatile which usually means: Capable of many different uses with "multi-purpose", "adaptable", "flexible" and "multi-use" as the runner-up candidates. --- Like you, I had no idea that tools like OneLook Thesaurus existed (despite how easy it would…

Do you know which technology implements that search? It seems LLM-like.

They've got that information scattered around a few pages. The Help page says they use (a modified version of) Datamuse for lookup, with Wikipedia, Wiktionary and WordNet providing dictionary definitions. The Datamuse API (https://datamuse.com/api/) uses a variety of GOFAI databases, plus word2vec: it's all pre-2017 tech. OneLook additionally uses https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02783 for one of its filters (added 2022): more details can be found on the Datamuse blog: https://www.datamuse.com/blog/. https://web.archive.org/web/20160507022201/http://www.oneloo... confirms the "longer queries" support (which you described as "LLM-like") was added in 2016, so it can't possibly be using LLMs; though I'm not sure how it does work. There may be some hints in the OneLook newsletter (e.g. https://onelook.com/newsletter/issue-10/ (10 July 2025?) cryptically notes that "Microdefinitions are algorithmically generated […] they go through a series of automated cross-checks against public domain dictionaries, and the suspicious ones are vetted by humans"), but the newsletter isn't about that, so I doubt there's much information there.

Re: We mourn our craft

#759

Post by jsrcout »

joquarky wrote: post #748
Nextgrid wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hire the junior developer because you can get them to learn your codebase and business domain at a discount, and then reap their productivity as they turn senior. You don’t get that with an LLM since it only operates on whatever is in its context. (If you prefer to hire seniors that’s fine too - my rates are triple that of a junior and you’re paying full price for the time it takes me learning your codebase, and…

> then reap their productivity as they turn senior What companies are retaining employees long enough for this?

Plenty of places, actually. Maybe not so much in the companies people here tend to be familiar with. It happens all the time where I work (smaller company far from the Bay area).

Re: We mourn our craft

#760

Post by arendtio »

> and parrot it back

I don't like this particular phrase, as it suggests that LLMs are just replicating code. As far as I understand, LLMs can also create new code and algorithms (some better than others). When we think of them as copy-paste-maschines, we judge their capabilities unfairly and also underestimate their capabilities.

Post reply on HN