Live data from Hacker News

Control the Ideas, Not the Code

antirez.com

31–40 of 208 posts

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#32
Some of the most exciting engineering work is happening in the DS4 repo - and I'm watching it almost like a sports game.

When the DSpark paper came out[1] the next day we had folks attempting to implement, working together, validating their failures. Eventually their work being synthesized into a PR[1] that admits performance is not ideal. Something antirez alluded to in one of his videos (speculative decoding is a great boon, but mostly for large labs hosting and serving many requests at once, and maybe not so effective for local inference).

There's recent work into "directional steering"[3] that has made it's way into per-session directional steering overrides thanks to audreyt[4].

There's support for the new Hy3[5] model also thanks to audreyt[6].

There's Pre-M5 optimizations[7] in the queue thanks to ivanfioravanti who also helped with some of the initial M5 optimizations.

I haven't watched a repo like this since llama.cpp and whisper.cpp in the early days (though llama.cpp is pretty exciting right now with the SYCL improvements that are flowing in for the new Intel GPUs).

The DS4 repo is a really interesting place to watch folks who heavily code with agents collaborate together in a way that seems pretty effective. I've been really enjoying it.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05147

[2]: https://github.com/antirez/ds4/pull/502

[3]: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.00045v2

[4]: https://github.com/antirez/ds4/pull/148

[5]: https://hy.tencent.com/research/hy3

[6]: https://github.com/antirez/ds4/pull/523

[7]: https://github.com/antirez/ds4/pull/555

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#33
post #2

I tried really hard to do this, but it turns out the models don't care about your ideas and want to do what's popular in their training data, so they will happily ignore anything you try to force down their throats, especially as context length grows or if you hit compaction. So to make best use of the models steer them down familiar paths, mention common pattern and frameworks, use popular packages and languages tha…

[dead]

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#34
post #2

I tried really hard to do this, but it turns out the models don't care about your ideas and want to do what's popular in their training data, so they will happily ignore anything you try to force down their throats, especially as context length grows or if you hit compaction. So to make best use of the models steer them down familiar paths, mention common pattern and frameworks, use popular packages and languages tha…

right, the model will listen to you for ~32k context; half of that is just getting them into the "downhill" path for being a coding assistant. You can throw in whatever your heart's desire and if it's a single fix, it might listen to you; but treating it like a smart-IDE basically means it'll follow whatever dominant pattern is in the training data.

If we had smart capitalism (the SAME PROBLEM) we'd realize what we want are per-framework or per-OS models that simply are 80% how to english and 20% the tools we need for a given project.

But that's no where the money is.

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#35
Very uncomfortable to read. The proposed idea of not reading the code you ostensibly wrote, doesn’t just challenge the traditional workflow or methodology, it challenges the identity of a programmer itself. For experienced, respected programmers like antirez perhaps reading and writing code truly has just gotten in the way of the ideas, but I cannot identify with that perspective. The devil is in the details, reading other peoples code (and code the LLM writes) evolves the idea itself, and changes my understanding of it. My view on this is so biased by the direct relation of code I read and write to feeding myself and my family (the vast majority of my programming is for a paycheck) that suggestions of removing myself from the process feel grim, not exciting.

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#36
I am not sure I'm buying this. The raison d'être for our existing software engineering methods is that humans make mistakes and we needed to contain the effects of these mistakes; and without an appropriate methodology to do that, software defects will just accumulate over time. Worse, once they show up, nobody understands the code well enough to do anything about them, or at least not without considerable time investment.

This does not change with agents doing the coding. Coding agents make mistakes also. Not very often nowadays, but neither do competent human programmers. And without a methodology to keep problems in check your agentic code will also accumulate software defects over time and result in code that becomes less and less maintainable, because you have no mental model of the software.

Antirez is correct in pointing out that slop existed before we started to use LLMs for programming; I've worked with my share of really ugly legacy code myself. But the problems do not magically disappear in the LLM age, no matter how good your model is. They remain, as every model is ultimately a heuristic (albeit a very powerful one), and no heuristic is 100% accurate.

This does not mean that coding agents are useless; used correctly, they can be enormously powerful accelerators for the software development (and validation!) process, because combining your strengths with those of a modern LLM is generally a substantial net gain. But that must still happen as a part of an approach that results in maintainable software with minimal defects.

Personally, I primarily use agents as virtual pair programmers these days, which I find very useful. This is an iterative process with relatively small and contained changes, where "looking at the code" is just part and parcel of following along and building a mental model of the resulting piece of software.

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#37
post #2

I tried really hard to do this, but it turns out the models don't care about your ideas and want to do what's popular in their training data, so they will happily ignore anything you try to force down their throats, especially as context length grows or if you hit compaction. So to make best use of the models steer them down familiar paths, mention common pattern and frameworks, use popular packages and languages tha…

I do highly unusual, off the beaten path projects with AI. For instance, a game engine written entirely in LuaJIT, but allocating almost all data structures using CFFI, a very unusual, custom object-orientation DSL I designed myself, and that uses SDL3's SDL_gpu library to do all rendering, a ton of GLSL 4.6 compute shaders cross compiled to SPIR-V and Metal (which constraints what GLSL can be written), and is a hybr…

> All I can say is skill issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point you're making, but I think calling it a "skill issue" is a bit reductive. These are relatively new tools that are changing quickly, and the amount of flexibility in how you can use them is a lot higher than pretty much anything else we've built up patterns for in the industry in recent years. Rather than dismissing people who express having trouble producing the results you can, I feel like we should be giving lifting others up by providing insights into how we're able to do those things when we know that they're possible. Otherwise, how do we know it's truly a "skill" issue and not a "knowledge" issue, and the only thing stopping them is that no one has helped them understand?

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#38
I think the gist of what the author is saying is, AI is not good enough to just give one vague prompt to and let it go, but it's good enough for you to give it a "design" and then not worry about the actual code it writes. But you need to do a lot of QA still. And you still need to learn to code and write some code, I guess so you can give the LLM good instructions? But if giving good enough instructions requires some level of coding skill, how are you going to gain that skill if you don't do much programming or reading code?

It all sorta feels like an old guy (he says he's old in TFA) who forgot how he got to where he is today trying to give advice. Be careful what you believe, young programmers.

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#39

Some of the most exciting engineering work is happening in the DS4 repo - and I'm watching it almost like a sports game. When the DSpark paper came out[1] the next day we had folks attempting to implement, working together, validating their failures. Eventually their work being synthesized into a PR[1] that admits performance is not ideal. Something antirez alluded to in one of his videos (speculative decoding is a g…

Thanks! And sorry for not yet merging many of those. The problem is, I'm dealing with tensor parallelism for the CUDA and Metal-RDMA fork right now, so was not albe to care about PR / issues for a lot of time.

Re: Control the Ideas, Not the Code

#40
post #2

I tried really hard to do this, but it turns out the models don't care about your ideas and want to do what's popular in their training data, so they will happily ignore anything you try to force down their throats, especially as context length grows or if you hit compaction. So to make best use of the models steer them down familiar paths, mention common pattern and frameworks, use popular packages and languages tha…

I do highly unusual, off the beaten path projects with AI. For instance, a game engine written entirely in LuaJIT, but allocating almost all data structures using CFFI, a very unusual, custom object-orientation DSL I designed myself, and that uses SDL3's SDL_gpu library to do all rendering, a ton of GLSL 4.6 compute shaders cross compiled to SPIR-V and Metal (which constraints what GLSL can be written), and is a hybr…

> All I can say is skill issue

I know nothing about you or your code, but till you make your code + workflows public and have all of it reviewed / critiqued (so that other can replicate the performance), it's hard to accept it as a serious case study.

For all we know, this could just as well be a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.

Post reply on HN