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

Programmers need to start meditating

jacob.gold

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 178 posts

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#141

Post by VorpalWay »

foldr wrote: post #136
VorpalWay wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with AI isn't that it can't write embedded code (though it is noticeably worse at it), the issue is specifically with the safety certification of code the AI produced. There is a lot of paper trail to show that you followed all relevant standards, a lot of which pertains to your development process. It is not just what you do or don't do in the code (e.g. MISRA or CERT C) but there is also a lot about how y…

There's plenty of embedded code in consumer products that doesn't need to meet any special standards like MISRA.

Well sure, but that isn't what my original comment that you were replying downthread of said. I specifically recommended safety critical embedded. :)

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#142

Post by hiq »

Regarding the multi-tasking induced by this new way of working (agentic coding), I've moved from quick and short iterations to a longer ideally one-shot prompt, optimizing for less reviewing and less context switching.

I used to send a prompt as early as possible, meaning that'd really just give the rough idea, barely a sentence, and see what the model would come up with, thinking that I'd save time if it got it right for the first time, and maybe I'd just need to correct what it got wrong (it's faster at typing than me). That means a lot of multitasking at a rather high pace, which takes its toll if you do it for too long.

I've recently switched to writing longer prompts (doing part of the planning myself), hoping to get better results and to have less to review: I'm realizing I'd rather write more and read less, past a certain threshold. I don't really want to iterate with an agent; I want to tell it, maybe in somewhat verbose terms, what I want, I want a quick confirmation that it'll indeed work, and I want the final output (e.g. a commit), that's it.

That's probably what some users have been doing since the beginning, but with all the hype around this tech, maybe I got caught by this idea that with just a few words, I can get stuff done. In my experience, it's indeed just a few words, but for useless units of work (iterations with a model) rather than what I really want (commit) which itself will often require non-trivial amount of input. In this case, I'd rather give it all in one go, in a somewhat focused state.

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#143

Post by [deleted] »

discreteevent wrote: post #121
hgoel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I see a lot of the type of people you're describing on here.

That type are called "engineers". I used to interview them and I didn't care if they knew anything about the business. Large codebases are the most complex things we have ever worked on and can easily become unmaintainable. I wanted people who really cared about code quality and consistency in order to offset this. I think that it would be even more important to hire people like that now and even though we will need…

[deleted]

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#144

Post by elestor »

tiborsaas wrote: post #48
jahala wrote: post #8

Meditation - «getting used to» A most elementary form of meditation, is getting used to placing your attention on a sensation and keeping it anchored there - even when other sensations or thoughts arise. Following the breath- place your awareness, your attention, on the sensation of air passing through your nostrils. Count one inbreath and outbreath cycle as «1», and count until 10 or 21. Decide before you start, how…

So attention is all we need?

.

  abs(cinema)

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#146

Post by mlsu »

VorpalWay wrote: post #51
ehnto wrote: post #3

I have certainly noticed my stress skyrocket in this new mode of working. I was used to getting a lot done very quickly, with intense pockets of work followed downtime. Now it feels more like a steady stream of medium stress, and there is no opportunity to stop or drop the thread. I must admit, if this is the new way of doing software development (eg: not actually programming but working with LLMs) I am not going to…

One idea to consider might be going into safety critical embedded work (e.g. brake controllers, critical systems for airplanes/trains, medical devices, some industrial systems, ...). AI hasn't penetrated much here yet. It isn't at all clear how or if you would be able to certify the process for example. That might change with time, but for now, all I see AI used for is additional code review and side scripts/tooling…

Safety critical embedded just doesn’t need as many lines of code. Your typical embedded codebase is small and long-lived, and if you’re spending a fortune to do verification and validation on a piece of code, the bottleneck is not the programmer.

A code change at my role recently, the diff was 6 lines, and that took at least 10 hours of combined writing documentation, figuring out which tests to run and then running them, pre-work for me, to propose the change and describe the behavior of the SW. So AI helps in all these processes, but having the agent write the code vs having me write the code makes no difference at all. I think most safety critical systems are like that.

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#147

Post by feanaro »

Syntaf wrote: post #137
feanaro wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is also lower is your understanding of the change. So yes, if you are now essentially only doing the final mile of paper pushing for the LLM, then the mental burden is lower but so is the assurance of what has just transpired. Whether this mode of working is going to be long-term viable is going to depend on how important it is for you to be aware of what has happened for the system in question, how viable the e…

Both very fair observations. > Whether this mode of working is going to be long-term viable is going to depend on how important it is for you to be aware of what has happened for the system in question This is the million dollar we'll see answered in our lifetime. Software engineering exists to automate work, are we arrogant to think we are not destined to the same fate? Is this truly a job befitting of a human over…

> This is the million dollar we'll see answered in our lifetime. Software engineering exists to automate work, are we arrogant to think we are not destined to the same fate? Is this truly a job befitting of a human over an agent?

There is a fine distinction here that I believe is often glossed over, so the two things it's delineating get muddled together. One of those two things is coding—the rote, mechanical encoding of meaning into computer instructions. It can be argued the LLM is fit to take this out of hands hands almost entirely, and it's almost indisputable the LLM is better at this in at least a certain sizeable subset of coding tasks.

But the other thing is the choosing, determination, specification of the intended meaning itself. This I think is squarely the job of the human, because letting this fall through to the AI means it is no longer the human that is making the decisions. This then becomes not merely automating work but ceding control. This, ultimately, is a bad thing.

So if we accept the premise that the specification of the intended meaning is the job of the human, the question is how you do that. Today many of us do it somewhat half-assedly, by writing lots of natural language text at the LLM and hoping it sticks. It is our hope that the text, given that there is a lot of it, will drive the stochastic machine in a sufficiently correct direction. This works to a degree—meaning we've ceded some control but not the majority of it—not least because we still read (most) of the code but cannot work in the limit, if code reading ceases.

A more proper way to specify the intended meaning is to specify (or "model") your system formally in a system that is mechanically verifiable. Then the final artefact produced by the LLM can be validated by verifying that it aligns with the specification. However this type of high-assurance specification looks a lot like a certain type of programming. In my opinion, writing this kind of specification is the future of human software engineering.

I do not accept the approach of simply rolling the dice and hoping the machine knows better than us, though I'm sure that church is also going to have its acolytes.

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#148

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

dosisking wrote: post #123
rdbell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Switch to a field that involves many people dying if you write a bug" doesn't sound like the less stressful alternative to me.

So maybe try the weapons industry? If you write a bug, it will probably miss the target, and people won't die.

Or it hits a school instead.

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#149

Post by suttontom »

pigpop wrote: post #130
wolvoleo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what the OP and I argue against, people insisting that it must be good for everyone. By the way the 'painful' part does more heaviy lifting there, not the boring. I've really tried a LOT during therapy and in some other situations. And it just doesn't work for me. Same with traditional exercise by the way. I can't do exercise in a gym (too empty) or have those 'gamification' goals, it must be more nat…

It's all exertion, for both "meditation" and exercise. I'm convinced that meditation doesn't work for a lot of people because it has too much dogma about what it's supposed to be, and maybe those aspects are valid for certain pursuits, but it obscures the core principle. Take exercise as an example first. It's also a practice that is layered under heaps of nonsense and complexity or fluffed up with idealisms and syst…

Agree with you on exercise. But staring at a painting is to meditation what curls are to building your core. People all recommend the same type of meditation for a reason--so that you can close your eyes, focus on something, notice when your mind drifts, and bring the attention back. You didn't mention anything about awareness or noticing when you lose focus, so your advice seems to completely miss the point.

Re: Programmers need to start meditating

#150

Post by ghostby_md »

wolvoleo wrote: post #44
ajb wrote: post #16

This isn't the worst article, and it's triggered a decent amount of discussion (despite being very short). However, I really dislike "What you're doing wrong/failing to do" titles. They are intended to trigger anxiety, which is manipulative and (in this case) precisely contradicts the concern the author is purporting to have for the rest of us. On the subject: some people find meditation very helpful, others find it…

> On the subject: some people find meditation very helpful, others find it a net negative, or useless, or impossible to do. So a categorical "you should do this" isn't correct or particularly helpful. Try it, if it works for you, great; but don't put it about that people who aren't doing it are being negligent in some way Absolutely. I've tried mediation in many situations and some classes but it's just not for me. M…

I think people overcomplicate this. What is meditation in most practices? Focusing on something someone has difficulty focusing on.

Following that logic, assuming focus is a generalizable and modifiable skill through these means, improved focus on something someone doesn’t want to focus on is the outcome of practicing it.

That’s why I believe it’s one of the best non pharmaceutical interventions someone with adhd can do. It’s directly training a “muscle” that may be atrophied.

Post reply on HN