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

The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

blog.okturtles.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 268 posts

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#41

Post by bbqbbqbbq »

infinite_spin wrote: post #35
moezd wrote: post #18

LLMs are still next token predictors, just because you can give it more vague instructions and it still finds the right steps to follow, it doesn't mean it's intelligent. It means you're speaking the same language as the harness they trained your model on. And that has a limit. If you are stuck at PoC level or simple apps, you have no idea how limited the current models still are. There you really need to break tasks…

> it doesn't mean it's intelligent I'm not sure how you're defining "intelligent", but I'd like to know how it is able to exclude a language model, while still including humans, without simply defining it with an axiom that predefines LLMs as lacking intelligence.

[dead]

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#42

Post by Cycl0ps »

infinite_spin wrote: post #35
moezd wrote: post #18

LLMs are still next token predictors, just because you can give it more vague instructions and it still finds the right steps to follow, it doesn't mean it's intelligent. It means you're speaking the same language as the harness they trained your model on. And that has a limit. If you are stuck at PoC level or simple apps, you have no idea how limited the current models still are. There you really need to break tasks…

> it doesn't mean it's intelligent I'm not sure how you're defining "intelligent", but I'd like to know how it is able to exclude a language model, while still including humans, without simply defining it with an axiom that predefines LLMs as lacking intelligence.

An LLM has a fixed number of ways it can express itself. we can give it an array of 14 billion options but it still has to chose one to output. Humans have no such limitation.

An LLM does not persist in consciousness from one token to the next. Each generation, happening hundreds of times a second, will be initialized, generate an output, and terminate. Humans are not stateless like an LLM.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#44

Post by 8note »

jonplackett wrote: post #6

I thought this was how everyone who can actually code uses AI for anything that’s actually important. Am I wrong? Are you guys just YOLOing everything these days?

yep. got a laptop i dont care about that claude can play with in wsl.

its the fun of funemployment.

starting work again is gonna be an interesting change though. its currently straightforward letting it run, then giving a broad critique and setting up new introspection/closed loop feedback for an hour over a beer, then letting it run wild again after

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#45

Post by artisin »

avereveard wrote: post #7

Seems hella inefficient. Better method start to realizing that everything that every program do is data transformations and or movement Then you ask llm to subdivide data in a tree along the domain model, classifing streaming vs storing nodes Then for each node you discuss with the ai for the best data structure Then you ask for an interface that fully encapsulate the structure and every mutation only allows to go fr…

Efficient != effective, and the author outlines as much. Regardless, while you're technically correct, it's kinda like saying the Fantasy Land Specification[1] (aka the "Algebraic JavaScript Specification") is pure. The problem is that purely functional fantasy lands rarely exist outside of fairytales. In other words, life is a lot like JavaScript and never that simple.

[1] - https://github.com/fantasyland/fantasy-land

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#46

Post by fny »

AI is a junior to mid-level engineer. If you treat it as such, you get the best of both vibe coding and rigorous engineering without all this paranoia.

Since the very beginning I've ran Claude from an isolated VM on yolo mode. This is just like giving an engineer their own laptop. Claude works on a feature up to a PR worthy point. I review the diff, just like I would with another engineer, and massage it to get it in the right shape and move on.

Inexperienced engineers make the same mistakes described I've even seen rm -rf albeit not from root! I would have lost my mind micromanaging someone with all permissions denied.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#47

Post by matheusmoreira »

ofjcihen wrote: post #31
semiquaver wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and you’re just a next-word-sayer.

I love this argument. Not because it’s true but because it betrays the posters doubt in their own sentience.

It's impossible for someone to doubt their own sentience. The literal act of doubting is enough to dissipate all doubt. Solipsism is essentially the one certainty that every mind out there has.

Doubting the sentience of machines and even other humans is perfectly fine though. Only empathy allows people to make the leap and assume other humans have souls.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#49

Post by CodingJeebus »

ed_mercer wrote: post #34

I feel like OP is still in the year 2025. > The AI will have gone off the rails multiple times and you will only notice it later when you actually try to use the software. Except that said AI can now themselves use your software and find and fix bugs themselves, not to mention drive new features. >Your agent might go “off the rails” and start doing something you don’t want it to do This happens but far less often tha…

> I think we're mving towards humans no longer needing to understand a codebase, and letting AI drive it.

Hard disagree. Even the best frontier models generate output that's not what I asked for. Sometimes I realize that I get lazy in my prompting and the lack of specificity winds up showing up in the output. Just the other day, a coworker built a huge feature using frontier models and it slipped an IDOR in.

I just don't see a world in which we completely cede control of the codebase to AI because it's still my ass on the line if I ship something that completely borks production. If I'm not reading code regularly, then I lose the ability to read code, and if I lose that ability, then I'm no longer a developer.

Post reply on HN