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

Don't you mean extinct?

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#91

Post by BrenBarn »

konart wrote: post #72

>In 1993, Jurassic Park came out and revolutionized the use of CGI in films I thought Terminator 2 did this. At least around where I lived everyone talked about T2 and questioned how they did this or that. JP? Not really.

Both were pretty influential. Roughly speaking I think a lot of people saw T2 and thought "wow, that looks really cool in a high-tech way" and a lot of people saw Jurassic Park and thought "wow, that looks really realistic". The silvery liquid terminator morphing into stuff was cool, but the natural-looking dinosaurs were cool in a complementary way.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#92

Post by fragmede »

skydhash wrote: post #67
echelon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer spending some time to design suitable data structures/algorithms for the problem at hand. I'm doing this at LLM speed now. I feel like I'm doing the work of two whole teams and designing rock-solid software. Rust, strong types, enums, fantastic interfaces, brevity.

> Rust, strong types, enums, fantastic interfaces, brevity. That's not what suitable data structures/algorithms mean. What you stated are mere helpers and still pertains to the realms of coding, not design. Coding isn't and never was the issue. It is a tool and not the intent. Think about what would stand universally true whether you use Go, C, JavaScript, Assembly,... The organization of data (information), and the…

No but it lets you iterate faster. Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect. Except by then, it's too late to change, so you march on. Writing code faster lets you find the things you didn't think of faster so then you get to design it again but better this time.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#93

Post by fragmede »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10
zdragnar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very much an N=1 anecdote from a friend, but his manager has basically doubled velocity expectations for the team at his company over the last year. Everyone has to use Claude code because that's the only model they're allowed to use, and not using it means not hitting the arbitrary expectations. Conversely, the company I am at has no such expectations, and we've got a legacy code base that LLMs aren't very h…

we've got a legacy code base that LLMs aren't very handy in anyway So do I. What I'm finding is that they are now. I've spent the last week tracking down bugs using Fable that have gone undiagnosed for several years. And this is a damned obscure legacy code base that runs on a proprietary 8051 variant. Guaranteed to be nothing like it in-distribution.

Damn, that must be fascinating to watch.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#94

Post by fragmede »

overgard wrote: post #80
alex_suzuki wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest gripe with AI is that I struggle to come up with even one real problem that it has solved in my daily life, and that of my family and friends. Yes it might have made me a bit faster at some things I do for work. But it seems to me that we face so many challenges as a civilization, and AI doesn’t actively help with any of them? Unless you buy into the narrative that it will somehow usher in a golden age of…

> My biggest gripe with AI is that I struggle to come up with even one real problem that it has solved in my daily life, and that of my family and friends. I wish I could upvote this a thousand times, because this is exactly my experience as well. It's made a few things slightly more convenient , but convenience is not exactly a problem in my life! And yet, it's actively damaging a lot of things I care about in a way…

Outside of coding, LLMs have helped me formulate thoughts and have conversations with people that I could never have had without AI. Thorny prickly people problems that previously would have required a therapist and a counselor and group sessions and many meetings can be worked through because I didn't have the volcabulary or expressiveness to say things before. That's not a convenience thing, oh Doordash for milk instead of having to go to the store, that's life changing.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#95

Post by troupo »

majormajor wrote: post #81
ChiperSoft wrote: post #53

This analogy has layers that OP probably doesn't recognize. The film industry loves cgi because none of the digital vfx houses are unionized and they can treat the artists like crap. It severely devalued a ton of skilled labor around miniature and set design. Now, after 20 years of hard swing into cgi, people are starting to recognize just how much better movies from the practical era looked, and there is a push back…

You can have the most everyday-setting movie or TV show imaginable and still have it VFX'd to hell and back compared to something shot on film 30 years ago. Not even just like Ted Lasso faking the stadiums/fields they were on, but just retouching every single little thing.

Basically anything you see out of a window, anything in the street more than a few meters away from a camera, almost any overhead shot, any wide shot, any panorama or landscape, blood, liquids, glass, any semblance of stunt work, most signs, boats, any action on water, flight... is vfx

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#96

Post by fragmede »

asdff wrote: post #85
evilduck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can accomplish quite a lot with smaller local models on reasonably priced pro tier hardware (not cheap hardware, but very attainable hardware for anyone making average software engineer money). Qwen 3.6 27B and 35BA3, Gemma 28B, and so on are incredibly beneficial even if Anthropic and OpenAI produce better options. Failing that, GLM 5.2 is open weights, trades blows with current frontier models and widely availa…

Why pay for hardware for local model when you have a working local brain?

Because I'm using my local working brain to work on other things. If I'm thinking about my family or making dinner I'm not thinking about the code I need to write. Or the email that needs to get sent, or setting up an eye doctors appointment. I'd pay for something to deal with that.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#97

Post by My_Name »

citizenpaul wrote: post #56
rnewme wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those times are passing and you'll sooner or later meet with new reality.

I think a lot of HN'ers are in denial. I was an LLM skeptic check my history if you like. At the beginning of 2026 LLMs shifted over the hump to as good or better than most devs and are continuing to get better. I don't think we've even begun to see how this is going to affect the industry. People in charge don't and never have cared about code quality, tech debt, maintainability. Now they will not only not care but…

I agree. Denial only takes you so far. At some point, the devs that insist on outdated working practices (at least ones the boss regards as such) will be replaced by younger people who either don't know about them, or like their boss, don't care.

They will just generate code that passes the tests also written by the AI, ask the AI to find any bugs, and so long as the code runs without obvious issues, that will get released.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#98

Post by marginalia_nu »

fragmede wrote: post #92
skydhash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rust, strong types, enums, fantastic interfaces, brevity. That's not what suitable data structures/algorithms mean. What you stated are mere helpers and still pertains to the realms of coding, not design. Coding isn't and never was the issue. It is a tool and not the intent. Think about what would stand universally true whether you use Go, C, JavaScript, Assembly,... The organization of data (information), and the…

No but it lets you iterate faster. Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect. Except by then, it's too late to change, so you march on. Writing code faster lets you find the things you didn't think of faster so then you get to design it again but better this time.

That sort of trial and error design seems like a really unprofessional way of working.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#99

Post by unleaded »

I don't get the part about having the AI write commit messages. Is it that hard writing them by hand? Looks 100x better plus saves potential embarrassment if the AI says something stupid. It seems very common though so maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#100

Post by skydhash »

fragmede wrote: post #92
skydhash wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rust, strong types, enums, fantastic interfaces, brevity. That's not what suitable data structures/algorithms mean. What you stated are mere helpers and still pertains to the realms of coding, not design. Coding isn't and never was the issue. It is a tool and not the intent. Think about what would stand universally true whether you use Go, C, JavaScript, Assembly,... The organization of data (information), and the…

No but it lets you iterate faster. Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect. Except by then, it's too late to change, so you march on. Writing code faster lets you find the things you didn't think of faster so then you get to design it again but better this time.

> Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect

The mistake here is trying to come up with the most elegant design. You solve for what’s needed with the knowledge that you’ve most likely not captured the full situation, and make allowance for future changes.

I don’t want faster code. What I want is flexibility in evolving my design and there’s plenty of good tools and practices for that. From ensuring your code is testable to ensuring there are easy ways to experiment with parts of it.

I’ve never been in a situation that says “We’ve not think of that, we need to get back to the drawing board”, It’s been mostly “We need a new version of this module to support this feature”

Post reply on HN