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

We might all be AI engineers now

yasint.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 384 posts

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#251

Post by 20k »

simonw wrote: post #225
20k wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to treat LLMs as a fallible source of information, why wouldn't I just go right to the source though? Having an extra step in between me and the actual truth seems pointless WinAPI docs are pretty accurate and up to date

Because it's faster. If the WinAPI docs are solid you can do things like copy and paste pages of them into Claude and ask a question, rather then manually scan through them looking for the answer yourself. Apple's developer documentation is mostly awful - try finding out how to use the sips or sandbox-exec CLI tools for example. LLMs have unlocked those for me.

But you have to check the answer against the documentation anyway though, to validate that its actually correct!

Unless you're just taking the LLM answers at face value?

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#252

Post by 20k »

mgraczyk wrote: post #223
20k wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this faster than just reading the documentation? Given that LLMs hallucinate, you have to double check everything it says against the docs anyway

Yes you have to be careful, but the LLM will read and process core and documentation literally millions of times faster than you, so it's worth it

I mean, is it really that hard to find information in the docs?

Like, if I want to find out what, I don't know, "GetQueuedCompletionStatus" does. I google

GetQueuedCompletionStatus

Find this page:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioapiset...

Bam, that's the single source of truth right there. Microsoft's docs are pretty great

If I use an LLM, I have to ask it for the documentation about "GetQueuedCompletionStatus". Then I have to double check its output, because LLMs hallaucinate

Doubly checking its output involves googling "GetQueuedCompletionStatus", finding this page:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioapiset...

And then reading the docs to validate whether or not what its told me is correct. How does this save me any time?

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#253

Post by paulcole »

nabbed wrote: post #128

I'm glad I am no longer in tech because I just don't want to do this. This is not a dig at AI. If I take this article at face value, AI makes people more productive, assuming they have the taste and knowledge to steer their agents properly. And that's possibly a good thing even though it might have temporary negative side effects for the economy. >But the AI is writing the traversal logic, the hashing layers, the wat…

> I'm glad I am no longer in tech because I just don't want to do this.

This like how my grandpa said he was glad to get out of engineering before they started using computers.

The technology i used was the fun technology. The technology you use is the un-fun technology.

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#254

Post by 20k »

mgraczyk wrote: post #221
20k wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to treat LLMs as a fallible source of information, why wouldn't I just go right to the source though? Having an extra step in between me and the actual truth seems pointless WinAPI docs are pretty accurate and up to date

Because it will take you years to read all the information you can get funneled through an LLM in a day

Except you have no idea if what the LLM is telling you is true

I do a lot of astrophysics. Universally LLMs are wrong about nearly every astrophysics questions I've asked them - even the basic ones, in every model I've ever tested. Its terrifying that people take these at face value

For research at a PhD level, they have absolutely no idea what's going on. They just make up plausible sounding rubbish

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#255

Post by prescriptivist »

archagon wrote: post #247
prescriptivist wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that people who don't want to use these tools or clean old ways are incurious. But I think these developers should face the fact that those skills and those ways they are reticent to give up are more or less obviated at this point. Not in the future, but now. It's just that the adoption of these tools isn't evenly distributed yet. I think there's a place for thoughtful dialogue around what this means fo…

A new technology comes out — admittedly one that’s extraordinarily capable at some things — and suddenly conventional software engineering is “more or less obviated at this point”? I’m sorry, but that’s really fucking dumb. Do you think LLMs are actually intelligent? Do you think their capabilities exceed the quality of their training corpus? Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build ne…

> Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build new frameworks, study computer science, because the regurgitated statistical version of programming is entirely good enough?

All I'm saying is you're gonna have to figure out how to do this with an agent. It's not that I don't see value in the craft; it's just that value is less important. As far as the new paradigms, the new frameworks, new studies in computer science -- they still exist, it's just that they are going to focus on how to mitigate heisenbugs, performance regressions and security holes in agent written code. Who knows.. in five years most of the code written may not even be readable. I'm not saying it's going to be like that, but it's entirely possible.

In the meantime, there's nothing stopping you from using the agent to write the code that is every bit as high quality as if you sat down and typed it in yourself. And right now there is a category of engineers that exclusively use agents to create quality software and they are more efficient at it than anybody that just does it themselves. And that category is growing and growing every day.

I may be out a job in five years because all of this. But I am seeing where this is going and it's clear and so I'm going to have to change with it.

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#256

Post by skydhash »

mgraczyk wrote: post #223
20k wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this faster than just reading the documentation? Given that LLMs hallucinate, you have to double check everything it says against the docs anyway

Yes you have to be careful, but the LLM will read and process core and documentation literally millions of times faster than you, so it's worth it

Why does it matter? We have table of contents, index and references for books and other contents. That’s a lot of navigational aid. Also they help in providing you a general overview of the domain.

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#257

Post by mgraczyk »

20k wrote: post #252
mgraczyk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you have to be careful, but the LLM will read and process core and documentation literally millions of times faster than you, so it's worth it

I mean, is it really that hard to find information in the docs? Like, if I want to find out what, I don't know, "GetQueuedCompletionStatus" does. I google GetQueuedCompletionStatus Find this page: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioapiset... Bam, that's the single source of truth right there. Microsoft's docs are pretty great If I use an LLM, I have to ask it for the documentation about "GetQueuedC…

How about we do the following.

I have not done win32 programming in 12 years. Maybe you've done it more recently. I'll use an LLM and you look up things manually. We can see, who can build a win32 admin UI that shows a realtime view of every open file by process with sorting, filtering and search on both the files and process/command names.

I estimate this will take me 5 minutes Would you like to race?

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#258

Post by archagon »

prescriptivist wrote: post #255
archagon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A new technology comes out — admittedly one that’s extraordinarily capable at some things — and suddenly conventional software engineering is “more or less obviated at this point”? I’m sorry, but that’s really fucking dumb. Do you think LLMs are actually intelligent? Do you think their capabilities exceed the quality of their training corpus? Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build ne…

> Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build new frameworks, study computer science, because the regurgitated statistical version of programming is entirely good enough? All I'm saying is you're gonna have to figure out how to do this with an agent. It's not that I don't see value in the craft; it's just that value is less important. As far as the new paradigms, the new frameworks, new s…

“When you're in Hollywood and you're a comedian, everybody wants you to do things besides comedy. They say, ‘OK, you're a stand-up comedian — can you act? Can you write? Write us a script?’ It's as though if I were a cook and I worked my ass off to become a good cook, they said, ‘All right, you're a cook — can you farm?’” —Mitch Hedberg

Agentic programming isn’t engineering: it’s a weird form of management where your workers don’t grow or learn and nobody really understands the system you’re building. That sounds like a hellish, pointless career and it’s not what I got into the field to do. So no thanks: I’ll just keep doing the kind of monkey engineering I find invaluable. Especially while most available models are owned and trained by authoritarian, billionaire, misanthropic cultists.

Fortunately, I am not beholden to some AI-pilled corporation for salary.

Re: We might all be AI engineers now

#259

Post by sdf2df »

archagon wrote: post #247
prescriptivist wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that people who don't want to use these tools or clean old ways are incurious. But I think these developers should face the fact that those skills and those ways they are reticent to give up are more or less obviated at this point. Not in the future, but now. It's just that the adoption of these tools isn't evenly distributed yet. I think there's a place for thoughtful dialogue around what this means fo…

A new technology comes out — admittedly one that’s extraordinarily capable at some things — and suddenly conventional software engineering is “more or less obviated at this point”? I’m sorry, but that’s really fucking dumb. Do you think LLMs are actually intelligent? Do you think their capabilities exceed the quality of their training corpus? Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build ne…

Lol. Im a CEO and Ive re-vamped my hiring process that has nothing to do with writing code.

I test to see the way people think now. People like you would pass my interview.

Post reply on HN