Live data from Hacker News

The Coming Loop

lucumr.pocoo.org

191–200 of 322 posts

Re: The Coming Loop

#191

The bottleneck has always been the 'verification' and 'trust', that's why we have senior engineers, same way you need a head architect sign-off on a blueprint, because when things go bad you need a human agent to be the responsible party. Even if we manage to teach a herd of dumb AIs to produce massive amount of code, who's going to trust that output with their life?

That's the entire topic - loops are not just infinite output, they require automated verification and progress evaluation steps.

The game is to find ways to automate that. Not fully but yes to reduce what's required from humans. Seems like you're questioning the entire premise rather than pondering how far it can be taken and how.

Re: The Coming Loop

#192
>>> For now I have not moved past the point of comprehension being important to me.

I see software as new form of literacy, even in the AI world, so yeah in my world view, comprehension will be something we always cling to.

I might comprehend some code the way I comprehend the newspaper article on the second page, others I comprehend like a Dylan Thomas poem. My attention might be different but I still need to understand it.

Re: The Coming Loop

#193
Thank you for writing this thoughtful post, Armin. I find it deeply comforting that the developer of Pi, an agent harness, does not remove himself from the loop, like me. Maybe if I started thinking of codebases as biological organisms I could get comfortable with getting the human out of the loop.

Re: The Coming Loop

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithms and data that emulate responses aren't smart. A 5 year old knows if you want to wash your car, you need to take it to the car wash.

Can a 5 year old write a substantial program on spec, that passes the requirements and given tests, in a few minutes? If not, then perhaps this comparison is not the be all end all. "A ship is useless, it can't drive over land..."

But it demonstrates that LLMs struggle with basic reasoning. A criticism of LLMs is that they're imitating without a understanding of what they're doing and without a clear plan, so this inability to solve a simple logic puzzle is very relevant. If LLMs didn't struggle with reasoning problems then something like ARC-AGI wouldn't exist.

Re: The Coming Loop

#195
I think what is going to happen is revival of "Methodology".

"Methodology" was a big thing in the past just before we got into "Agile Extreme Coding", instead of trying to model the big picture of SW development projects just jump into coding agilly. Implement it feature-by-feature

Granted the methdologies proposed ( See: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/rational-soft-arch/9.7.0?topic=m... ) may have been too heavy and not flexible and not improved enough. But now with the rise of Agents I think we need to revise and perhaps re-invent them for AI agentic development.

Re: The Coming Loop

#196
post #160

What does any of that mean in practice? it's just rambling about abstract concepts that seem to be designed to hint at a bigger picture, when it's just getting AI to write code for you. Is this where it's going? Having to mystify our roles so it seems like we're still the thought leaders when actually we're just becoming pseudo-teachers that try and herd our group of AI idiots to the right conclusion for us so we don…

> What does any of that mean in practice?

They want you to spend more tokens

Re: The Coming Loop

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This too shall pass. The journey was as important as the destination if not more because it gave confidence in oneself, it made us grow. I mean to suggest, coding for the sake of coding "I wish to code for myself, nothing else": (I had written this somewhere else on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609962 If I may ask you and others, I assume that you are at a relatively decent position within your company…

TL;DR of this and many other comments: Oh, AI is so good but it is so bad! You guys got some severe personality split you'd better hurry up fixing.

I think that the problem basically arises due to the fact that the technology is recent and the opinions on it are hard to make and even if we do end up making opinions, then my opinion is of the fact that I am more than happy for AI to suddenly vanish but clearly that can't be the case and there have been some long term discussions that I can point out to.

We can however change our opinions on AI and the culture surrounding it but as witnessed from my comment and other people replying to it, the question is becoming as of if we engineers even have the necessary power capable to bring so the change within how or if we use AI.

That is why, I believe that we might need some nuance rather than a complete acceptation or complete rejection of it.

AI is like a double edged sword, something which is fundamentally both good and bad[0] It is my opinion that currently, the bad outweighs the good and I have been vocal about it, but the control of the matter is strictly beyond one or even one good/bad binary.

The primary issue of the matter is the fact that some people (mainly the C-suite/investor class) believe in so much of the goodness of AI that they are willing to think that anyone pointing out anything bad of AI is the one who hasn't used it and how there are all these anecdotal evidences of people being impressed by model's quality and its evolvement, so surely, if AI must have grown so much and is so good as everyone says online it is (within an internet thought bubble), the fault must be lying on the engineer and he must be one of those luddites who has failed to accept technology and must be replaced.

I suppose some people genuinely believe the above paragraph that I wrote. I have heard some of such sentiments on Hackernews itself...

My point is probably that AI should be treated as a double-edged sword really, that's about it. We can go into the details of it if you so prefer and I think that you are right that its within the nitty gritty details that there is ambiguity and how this discussion leads to that ambiguity, so in that sense I concede but that there should be a better more skeptical discussion regarding the use of AI and it should be up to the organization at first for them to decide how they use AI and be flexible with it but not at the sake of the sanctity of code and coding practices.

I feel like it would be hard to gain a worldwide consensus on the use of AI within software development, we can certainly try but it would be more effective to do so at an organizational level and to slowly level up and I do hope that the world eventually figures out a somewhat consensus of it.

Hope I am able to explain some parts of the severe personality split, this did get long but that's probably because I have just watched some somewhat thought provoking media which used some great vocabulary and I am somewhat copying it as my brain thinks about your comment.

But yea, in all honesty, that's about it. got a bit long so sorry about it but have a nice day and thanks for reading if you did and if not, thats fine as well and I hope you and everyone else including me navigating this somewhat shit hole that has become internet discussion about AI and AI in general, things are getting exhausting and there is some negativity in life at times but I hope that we overcome it and I am optimistic in some sense and I wish nothing but good for all of you within your future as we all navigate the uncertainties of future together :-D

[0]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/263521/word-phra...

Re: The Coming Loop

#198

> the right fix is not "handle every malformed case." ... [LLMs] will still attempt to handle now impossible errors. This is the number one code smell from LLMs and I don't know why they are so obsessed with it. In python, it often comes as `hasattr` checks on types that are defined to have that attribute, in a code base that is fully type-checked. Why do they do that? Is it from pre-training or re-enforcement? If th…

Sorry to say but the solution is to stop using python. The models are trained to code defensively assuming historically representative python codebases. The models trust the types a lot more in languages where the canonical historical examples trust the types because the language is constructed around that premise.

I would expect a language model to do a better job of coping with that kind of uncertainty, inferring type from name and usage, etc.

Re: The Coming Loop

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will always be able to ask the agent to do refactors for you - and it can do mega ones that exhaust you to think about!

Agentic refactoring is very questionable if you want to maintain quality, as it will rewrite all your code to be more average.

I've found that if you look over the code and notice and describe a specific problem and solution, the agent can apply a refactoring for you well enough; and that's often faster than editing the file yourself even if you already know exactly what to do.

The idea of setting up an agentic loop to review code and propose and implement refactorings still seems pretty awful to me, though, yeah. Maybe cut that off at the first green-bar revision, and then apply some actual taste and judgement.

Re: The Coming Loop

#200

> My current status is that I have not had much success with this way of working for code I deeply care about If something is judgement heavy, "code i care deeply about", then i don't really agree with the direction of travel here. Don't try to delegate decisions you care deeply about. I do like the framing of agent loop vs harness loop, but only delegate stuff that you can accurately specify in advance, that usually…

> Don't try to delegate decisions you care deeply about.

> they didn't live the curse of having that kind of person around - if you don't have them PERFECTLY aligned, then they run off at break neck speed in the wrong direction.

Exactly. If you wouldn't outsource it to people you considered highly skilled, why would you outsource it to a machine?

Post reply on HN