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

Making

beej.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: Making

#141

Post by maxrimue »

I find this topic super interesting because I recently created some side-projects using Claude (not in their entirety, but major parts of them) and felt strangely disconnected to them afterwards, even though they accomplished what I was looking for. That made me think about how AI usage for me should look like in my free time.

Maybe what the author is talking about, and what I felt to a degree, is the act of deciding and formulating decisions. Looking at the compiler vs. AI example for machine code, one aspect that immediately stands out to me is that a compiler should deterministically produce consistent outcomes for precise instructions. Claude, on the other hand, will take your instructions, which are likely less precise than code, and "reason" about them. It will produce output that varies each time you would ask it and it will bake in behavior you didn't explicitly ask for. AI makes decisions for you. And maybe that's what makes AI so useful in the first place.

One way around this may be to be just as strict with your instructions. Giving AI an exact spec to work with, like large Markdown specs or detailed tests to run against. But then again, if you take the time to formulate those, is it much of a jump to write the code yourself?

What's clear is that AI is awesome for helping with issues you can't resolve, or explaining concepts in a personalized way. But letting it make decisions for you prioritizes outcome over creation, and for side-projects you build out of the love for creation, that may just not make sense, just like as a consumer I feel disinterested in "AI art". AI is for products, not for art, and that dumb little idea to work on in the afternoon might just be more art than product.

Re: Making

#143

Post by fishbacon »

The intro followed immediately by obvious AI slop put me so off that I stopped reading. They may be trying to make a point. But the way they are doing it is off putting.

Re: Making

#144

Post by rjh29 »

fishbacon wrote: post #143

The intro followed immediately by obvious AI slop put me so off that I stopped reading. They may be trying to make a point. But the way they are doing it is off putting.

The prose and art is obvious AI slop. If the author somehow thinks that can deceive an intelligent reader then they've lost me already.

Re: Making

#145

Post by hnarayanan »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #116

I think some people are drawn to technical careers because they like details and others are drawn to them because they like systems (now people are drawn for money too, but I'm talking about people who are more technically oriented). My theory is that if you are a systems person you find using LLMs fun and fulfilling and if you are a details person you find that they are the opposite. I have an acquaintance who is fa…

This is the take on this entire thread that I resonate with the most.

As a systems person, I do not know how to share with a details person how the combination of some magically conjured (and sometimes inscrutable) building blocks can still take us to interesting and joyful end results.

Re: Making

#146

Post by cryptopian »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #116

I think some people are drawn to technical careers because they like details and others are drawn to them because they like systems (now people are drawn for money too, but I'm talking about people who are more technically oriented). My theory is that if you are a systems person you find using LLMs fun and fulfilling and if you are a details person you find that they are the opposite. I have an acquaintance who is fa…

I enjoy software more out of a love of maths than a love of technology. My favourite class of problems are the times I can boil a problem down to a simple equation without even touching a keyboard, and I seem to be one of the few people who enjoy algorithmic design. So for me, churning out a script using an LLM hits the same part of my brain as randomly inserting numbers into a sudoku until the app tells me I have the right answer.

Re: Making

#147

Post by liminal-dev »

Balooga wrote: post #108
liminal-dev wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. To the same extent, I could say that you did not make an app because you didn’t write the compiled assembly code, build the processor, make the silicone yourself, etc. Tools are tools. Same as Photoshop, Ableton, they get you to where you want to go. Where is the line drawn?

When you create a work using a tool, you own the copyright. When you create a work using an LLM, there is no copyright. So then isn't an LLM less than a tool?

[dead]

Re: Making

#148

Post by gspr »

planb wrote: post #20

I know many people agree but I can’t really follow this sentiment. I can still take pride in something I “made” with an LLM even if I did not write a single line of code for it. I wouldn’t show it around and proclaim what a great programmer I am, because I did not program it, but coding was never the main goal, it was always the means to create the finished end product. When I plan a remake of my garden and then hire…

I think this is some of the most interesting revelation to come about during these times: there seems to be two kinds of people – those for whom the act doing something well has the highest inherent value, and those for whom accomplishing well has the highest inherent value.

This of course doesn't mean the former group doesn't care about the outcome, or that the latter group does poor work. But the dichotomy seems very real. We've had conversations at work where the room splits in two and both sides struggle to grasp how the other side can possibly feel that way. Everyone involved respects eachothers' skills, but we've never known about this fundamental schism until now, and it's like discovering that half your coworkers are aliens.

Re: Making

#149

Post by [deleted] »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #130
never_inline wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I am a quality person and I am disappointed because LLMs are squandering any remaining commitment to quality in favor of quantity and speed in certain environments?

Then you might want to spend more time on the quality of your guard rails. It's the best way to ensure LLMs produce higher quality output. To get the best results, you need to get systematic about enforcing what you want. Guardrails are one of the tools for doing that. A lot of developers are acting like passive bystanders here. You can take a more active role in the whole process, including doing quality assurance a…

[deleted]

Re: Making

#150

Post by voidUpdate »

liminal-dev wrote: post #90
wlesieutre wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t tell me I did not “make” it because it simply would not exist if I hadn’t created it. So like when I went to a restaurant last week and "made" a cheeseburger with no lettuce and extra onions, because it wouldn't exist if I hadn't created it. To me, making something can mean you did the physical work of its creation even if there's no particular creative expression, like "I made a peanut butter and jelly sandw…

I disagree with this line of reasoning. To the same extent, I could say that you did not make an app because you didn’t write the compiled assembly code, build the processor, make the silicone yourself, etc. Tools are tools. Same as Photoshop, Ableton, they get you to where you want to go. Where is the line drawn?

Silicone: rubbery, used for kitchen utensils and breast implants

Silicon: Metallic, used for making circuit components

Post reply on HN