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

91–100 of 268 posts

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#91

Post by infinite_spin »

root_axis wrote: post #79
infinite_spin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while the how is different, the what has many parallels. E.g. both the brain and LLMs appear to learn distributions of representations, they both develop a hierarchy of those representations, both have early layers that process simple features, with later ones processing more abstract concepts, both predict missing information...

The post I responded to stated that the commenter was just a next-word-sayer, but that's wrong. The similarities you draw aren't really relevant to my reply.

no disrespect intended, however I think my response is relevant, because the broader topic here is whether LLMs and the human mind share similar functions. They both do in fact have a lot of overlapping features, and a fundamental one is predicting next-thing, be that a word, image, or otherwise.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#92

Post by altmanaltman »

not_a_bot_4sho wrote: post #80
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. I can see this being true for non-critical software like entertainment, media, and so on. Definitely not true for systems where security stakes are high. Like banking, aviation, defense, etc.. AI will surely contribute but not independent of human engineering understanding.

In all those fields you mentioned, they have a lot of strict compliance measures and it is highly unlikely that AI will just be able to take over. Ironically almost all of aviation code is actually machine-generated using things like Simulink

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#93

Post by hansvm »

bpodgursky wrote: post #77
fny wrote: post #46

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…

> AI is a junior to mid-level engineer This is not true anymore and you aren't helping yourself by deluding yourself about it. It's something, nobody quite knows what, but it's NOT a junior or mid level engineer, it's a nuclear powered staff engineer living in a cardboard box who lacks domain context and wakes up with no memories ever 5 hours.

And who can't code its way out of a wet paper bag on hard problems. It's more productive for the day-to-day BS, which is convenient because it creates more day-to-day BS you need to handle, but that isn't the reason I hire a staff engineer.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#95

Post by solumunus »

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.

I’m not sure what sentience has to do with it.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#96

Post by bpodgursky »

hansvm wrote: post #93
bpodgursky wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI is a junior to mid-level engineer This is not true anymore and you aren't helping yourself by deluding yourself about it. It's something, nobody quite knows what, but it's NOT a junior or mid level engineer, it's a nuclear powered staff engineer living in a cardboard box who lacks domain context and wakes up with no memories ever 5 hours.

And who can't code its way out of a wet paper bag on hard problems. It's more productive for the day-to-day BS, which is convenient because it creates more day-to-day BS you need to handle, but that isn't the reason I hire a staff engineer.

i'm sorry but you're wrong and the only person you're hurting with your delusions is yourself. it doesn't change reality to pretend the world isn't changing under your feet.

i'm not going to argue about this but for your own career etc i truly hope you evaluate your epistemics.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#97

Post by solumunus »

joenot443 wrote: post #76
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…

What would you say is your benchmark for calling something intelligent?

Can it solve problems.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#98

Post by teravor »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #47
ofjcihen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

    > It's impossible for someone to doubt their own sentience. The literal act of doubting is enough to dissipate all doubt.
i never found this convincing. just because you can loop does not mean you are sentient/conscious. what would it look like if you didn't exist and there was just a system that interrogated neural inputs and produced neural outputs in a loop? if anything, LLM's as an existence proof made this more likely to be the actual case.

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#99

Post by data-ottawa »

sebmellen wrote: post #17
gambiting wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>You never use “YOLO” mode (aka “dangerously skip permissions”) Do you mean this? I'm curious how are people using Claude in any way other than bypass-permissions. I've tried for so long to maintain a curated list of things Claude can use, but inevitably I would always come back only to find it stuck because it decided to pipe an output of one tool into another and that's not explicitly allowed so it stopped even th…

I’ve found unexpected success in using ephemeral NixOS VMs for local development… once you authenticate your agent you can let it run wild without worrying about permissions.

Dies the agent have access to is own nix config (and therefore install permissions), or do you have to provide it all the tools externally?

Re: The short leash AI coding method for beating Fable

#100

Post by fy20 »

sothatsit wrote: post #23

This “short leash” seems like more of a crutch to me, and a sign of not giving the AI enough detail on the problem to begin with, or not reviewing and iterating on its output. Hand-holding great models like Fable through implementation is a waste of time, and a waste of Fable. You can have increasingly nuanced discussions with stronger models, and they write a lot better code than they used to. The process of discuss…

The article feels like micromanaging AI. If you think about it like a junior employee, micromanaging them will mean they end up doing the work you want and do it your way. But they won't bring any of their ideas to the table, which in the long run could be beneficial to everyone on the team.
Post reply on HN