Live data from Hacker News

We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

unix.foo

101–110 of 283 posts

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#101

Competence Does Not Mean What You Think it Means. Please don't fucking tell people that AI is competent. It is not and it cannot ever be because it is not alive .

AI can't be a competent person, but inanmate things can be competent. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competence

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#103
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Please get used to this sort of depressive, absurd and out of touch tone from HNers, it’s literally all they do now. Don’t bother calling people here hackers anymore, they have checked out emotionally and spiritually.

come on now. so even if you're right, checking out emotionally and spiritually just means more life lived. That ain't some kind of bad thing. life is good sometimes. hard sometimes. and it's long sometimes, so give people a break.

> checking out emotionally and spiritually just means more life lived

What exactly about checking out makes it 'more living'? I sense a false dichotomy here

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#104

The issue with this is that we don't know how it works. Generally speaking, we know how the level of abstraction that we were born with works. We might have some understanding of one or two previous levels, but that decreases the farther down you go. We might understand the next level, and some of the next after that, but eventually people will be making things that we don't have the context to understand without hav…

I think it's more that "Some human some time has known how it works", not that "Any given human knows how it (all) works.". But yea this glosses over a bit trial-and-error designs and, so to speak, "genetic optimization" kinds of designs where we just try random stuff and say "Hey, this works. Not sure why, but it works.".

There was a period of a century or more where steam engine design parameters were determined by experiment and gut feel. The physics of fluid dynamics required to explain why a design is optimal just did not exist yet.

There's a lot of places in history where engineering far outpaced the science required to explain it.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#105
I can't help but think this type of step function change has happened with computers before.

The change from punch cards to magnetic storage certainly made it so you didn't have to "know how it works" for every single bit.

The change from machine code to a language like Fortran brought about such an abstraction that a Fortran dev didn't "know how it works" at that same level anymore.

At this point, the layers of abstractions between using a React component and something being rendered is immense. React VDOM, the real DOM, browser render engine (which sits on abstractions like ANGLE, skia, etc), calls OS APIs, which call driver APIs, and the lowest level of anything it is still C/C++ that is compiled (abstracted) to something closer to what the hardware expects.

I won't bore you with the ChatGPT output details, but it estimated at least 35 meaningful layers of abstraction between a React component and being rendered to the screen. LLMs seem to be the latest level of abstraction to make it so we "know how it works" less than before.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#106
> They will have a tool that does everything and asks for nothing, and they will be as easy with it as you are with the light switch you never once thought about.

Oh come on! Of course I wondered how a light switch work, and I then learnt. I remember taking apart broken electronics as a kid, and that later morphed into also trying to repair things. Including the computer (both hardware and software wise). I remember ending up reinstalling the OS so many times as a kid on the computer I had access to when I broke it in various ways past what I was able to fix.

Sure, not everyone will have that drive to understand how the world around them works under the hood. But for engineers and scientists I would expect a far higher percentage to have that sort of personality.

It doesn't matter if it isn't "pushing back", just that I don't understand it is enough to catch my interest and a reason to go poking at the thing.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#107
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think there's something to be said for the big difference in the current abstraction layer jump - the loss of determinism. It is meaningfully different.

Plenty of physical (and biological) processes are subjectively non-deterministic outside clean rooms. Doesn’t mean our ancestors couldn’t forge and selectively breed.

There's a big difference between "deterministic + noise" non-determinism and "intelligent agent" non-determinism. Only the former can be statistically modeled to characterize and work around the noise with any reliability. If you measure hallucination rate for one prompt it tells you nothing about hallucination rate for another prompt.

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#108
I may not be a "typical" engineer as much anymore, in that I don't seem to be excited by knowing the intricate details of how things work as much as I enjoy knowing the capabilities of the systems that enable the projects I work on, and working at a higher level that might be more abstract and conceptual. AI enables that very well in that it enables jumping between paradigms and enabling creativity by removing a lot of the grind that was necessary in gathering technical details. I find it less appealing now to get into the weeds of how a thing works, even though at 10 I very much did. Like the author, I dug into the details of exactly which bits needed to be activated to make a particular program work. But as I aged, I was drawn to higher levels of abstraction, I think because I realized I could do more overall by piecing together bigger blocks. Yet I know colleagues who like to be involved in a very granular level of detail. I have many friends who almost revel in their knowledge that they are the ones who know precisely why something works the way it does. I think about the story of the NASA engineer on the Apollo 11 program who understood the assembly so well that he could confidently answer on the spot the moment the radar overload "1201 alarm" error flashed that the mission was still good to go. Some folks get so deep in this perspective that it almost seems like an affront to suggest they may be wrong about one of those details. And well they should, because precise people are very much needed to understand intricate systems. But it makes me wonder how they feel with AI being an indeterminate system - one where you can never really know what the answer will be every time. Likely still correct, and getting better every day, but also possibly different every time. Added to that, it's exponential spread across the software engineering domain. For me, even as someone who likes high-level systems, I still relate to the feeling that the detailed part of me that still likes some of the internals may be less focused on in the future. Even for me that's kind of sad. But I am also curious about my colleagues who are super detail oriented - how do you feel about AI and how it changes the focus on that detail aspect?

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#109
post #84
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's absurd is thinking because you took a logic class and made a flip flop 30 years ago that that is the ground floor and that it means you "understand how it all works". You're not building a CPU from logic gates and you don't know how it works. If I put you or OP in a room for a year I highly doubt you could build an 8 bit Atari-like CPU from scratch. I worked with wires and logic too but I'm not arrogant enough…

Don't you think there is a difference from "knowing how it works" and "reproducing every aspect of it at the level of the state of the art" ? Also, your example seems flawed if you restrict to a certain product. Can I build a compiler from scratch? Yes. Can I reproduce in a year a compiler with LLVM/GCC performance level? No. Can I build a compiler from scratch in a year from a room if I need to starting mining from…

Not really, at least not in this discussion. An assembly programmer gets logic gates, a C programmer gets assembly, etc etc. And each one can say to the one above "well you don't really get it if you can't bang out some meaningful work". Otherwise idk what we're even talking about here. Having a vague understanding of something isn't "knowing how it works".

Re: We Are the Last People Who Know How It Works

#110
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think there's something to be said for the big difference in the current abstraction layer jump - the loss of determinism. It is meaningfully different.

Plenty of physical (and biological) processes are subjectively non-deterministic outside clean rooms. Doesn’t mean our ancestors couldn’t forge and selectively breed.

I think it's safe to say that computing should be mostly deterministic. I know compilers use heuristics that are stochastic, but come on. Imagine if you were given a layer of abstraction that randomly flipped bits from time to time... That's not an abstraction, it's random programming.
Post reply on HN