[flagged]
LLMs reward expertise
331–340 of 605 posts
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it performs the overall function but the code is a mess, then you can ask the model to describe parts of it, the structures and what the structures are for. When it shows you something that is messed up, suggest a better framing for the same thing and ask the model to implement the better framing without regressing on already passing tests. I'm going through this right now on a very difficult to implement task, th…
This sounds like coding manually would take less time.
I think you would be incorrect. While AI could not write what what I have so far on its own. Neither could I.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harness? I am an avid HN reader but even I don't yet fully understand how this word is used in the AI context. Which is exactly the point of the OP. It all boils down to naming things and cache invalidation, /s
Harness refers to the tooling that allows you to interact with an LLM. Web chat interface is a harness, CLI coding tools (claude code, codex, opencode, pi, etc.) are harnesses, agent systems (openclaw, hermes, etc.) are harnesses. They present different capabilities to the underlying LLM. Codex, for example, is more likely to write code if you say "I want to build an app" than ChatGPT on web will.
Which is an abstraction layer that the non-technical should need to know, if we follow GP's line of reasoning.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#334I did a test a few months ago. A friend of mine wanted to develop what i understood to be a simple single page web app. But since she didn’t have any software engineering experience she asked me to help. Around that time everyone was talking about how literally anyone can develop software with LLMs i asked her if she could give it a try first, and if I could watch the attempt. I was fully expecting that writing the c…
What terminology is required to make Claude Code write code?
My experience with friends has been the opposite. A PM friend made a custom tool. A friend who has never written a line of computer code has an app.
If you tell Claude Code "I want a website that does X, Y, and Z" it will write code.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They didn’t even get to that point. Because my friend didn’t have the vocabulary to ask the AI to write code. What harness did you use? In e.g. claude, there are two modes: 1. Spit out code 2. Draft a plan, ask questions, GOTO 1 You literally have to go out of your way to get it NOT to write code. I keep mine on a tight-ish leash because it modify code way too happily even when there's no intention or instruction t…
Harness? I am an avid HN reader but even I don't yet fully understand how this word is used in the AI context. Which is exactly the point of the OP. It all boils down to naming things and cache invalidation, /s
Personally I even refuse to learn what it is in the AI context. Feels like a waste of energy given new ~~~best ways to use YOUR tokens~~~ are discovered every month and things you learn now will be useless next month.
I am doing perfectly fine with the web UI version of these tools... They seem to also not make tokens dissappear as fast as using claude cli tool to automate implementations. Makes my work day more tolerable as well as I actually have something to do over waiting until some implementation can be read through...
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#336They’re a force multiplier if you are skilled and chaos if you are not.
If you are not skilled they are not chaos, just more distracted, wasting tokens in being nice to humans. It could still teach one very well so that one improves its domain expertise.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#337I did a test a few months ago. A friend of mine wanted to develop what i understood to be a simple single page web app. But since she didn’t have any software engineering experience she asked me to help. Around that time everyone was talking about how literally anyone can develop software with LLMs i asked her if she could give it a try first, and if I could watch the attempt. I was fully expecting that writing the c…
Question is if the outcome was LLM related or just a result of a personality trait. After all, talking in circles without really approaching an end-goal is something certain humans do all day long.
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#338I did a test a few months ago. A friend of mine wanted to develop what i understood to be a simple single page web app. But since she didn’t have any software engineering experience she asked me to help. Around that time everyone was talking about how literally anyone can develop software with LLMs i asked her if she could give it a try first, and if I could watch the attempt. I was fully expecting that writing the c…
>she didn’t find a way to tip the AI into “just do it, write it now” mode
worse, the longer an LLM conversation goes on, but especially with constricted/free models (yes the simple chat interface they are likely using) the harder it is to get an LLM into this mode even *IF* you know the right words to say
at that point the best way forward is to terminate the exchange entirely, and to start off with the right initial message, instantly getting into coding mode. a non technical person will not know this and be stuck in feature theory crafting mode in perpetuity, or worse in an endless "excuses' mode as the LLM diverts ant attempt at coding into reasons why its not going to: "i wont output incomplete/broken code! that would require too many lines of code sorry i wont do it! i wont be able to get it perfect so i wont attempt it! but heres more features and theory crafting"
will a non technical person know to end the conversation and start fresh? not likely unless they have a lot of experience already with LLMs
Re: LLMs reward expertise
#339Re: LLMs reward expertise
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We've seen plenty of examples of apps successfully vibe coded by non technical people, including apps making real revenue. Have we? Or is this just something that people say now, without citation?
A friend of mine, non-technical, is not making money with his apps. But he's creating a street fighter like game. Just for fun. So there's that. He can't exactly release it because he uses a lot of copyrighted stuff. It's also meant only for himself. Though, I've been asking if I can play it, it looks fun.
I think we desperately need to start differentiating between "is creating" and "has created". I have a couple of "am creating" projects too, but their proximity to "have created" is directly proportional to how much effort and expertise _I_ am bringing, not so much related to the AI's contribution.