So, don't be John Carmack. Got it.
Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
61–70 of 427 posts
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#62I understand why people value the code John Carmack has released but I do not understand why people value his public statements. "eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id"[0] "Great! I think Microsoft has been a good parent company for gaming IPs"[1] By sheer coincidence, John Carmack is peddling machine generated code.[2] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/2008100311…
I have a new theory as of this moment. Elon Musk, Paul Graham, Steve Yegge and now, sadly John Carmack. Your average hacker scoffs at the idea of religion or faith, but somehow is comfortable with complete unquestioning fealty to whichever person who did something interesting with technology in the past and made enough money to afford drugs you don’t get arrested for and then they started prophesying. Before you ston…
> Elon Musk, Paul Graham, Steve Yegge and now, sadly John Carmack. Your average hacker scoffs at the idea of religion or faith, but somehow is comfortable with complete unquestioning fealty to whichever person who did something interesting with technology in the past and made enough money to afford drugs you don’t get arrested for and then they started prophesying.
Why do you characterize people you disagree with as having "complete unquestioning fealty" to any of these figures who did something interesting with technology in the past? Seriously, why do you think that accurately characterizes anyone's view? I think this observation that John Carmack made on Twitter has some merit to it - it doesn't mean that I worship John Carmack as my god, or even that I think he's necessarily correct about any other issue. And why would I need to do either of those things to think that the one specific observation of his that we're talking about in this thread has merit to it?
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#63Ironically, this post comes off as out of touch. The purpose of the various martial arts isn't just to win in a life-or-death brawl or murder people as efficiently as possible. Similarly, the point of programming isn't just to generate as much code as possible, or only to be more "productive".
Code in most organizations is a means to an end to produce an actual product. The job of a SWE is to not produce the most sublime readable code with cute language bells and whistles that you can show off to your other programmer friends. Yes its fun to do and interesting, but the main value in writing code is to express your intent so you and other people that are working with you can actually build something of valu…
You're reducing programming to its utility in producing exchange value in the captitalist political economy. That's what "value" means in this context. That's exactly what I'm pointing out. Programming is more than that, if you can think beyond your current economic constraints. Your life's activity ought to be more than just a tool for producing capitalist exchange value.
Does cooking food serve any purpose beyond mass producing food for restaurants to sell?
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#64HN is loaded with out of touch Kung Fu masters. They were the loudest skeptics against AI. Still a lot here. It's human nature. If your identity is defined by your kung fu and a technology is about to obsolesce your kung fu, then all logic goes out the window as you go all out in protecting your identity. It's mostly for themselves. They have to lie to themselves and tell themselves that they still "matter".
It's funny that we almost agree except you have it 100% backwards.
The out of touch kung fu masters are all retired or close to it. They continue to shout about their big bet on AI as loudly as possible to protect their egos and, as a last ditch effort, whatever money they threw in.
After all, everyone who is mid-career and younger cannot possibly be a master of anything. Of course they're using AI at work, but that is an extremely far cry from the AI actually helping. They use it because it's shoved down their throats and they don't want to rock the boat. Working extra hours from home is the perfect way for everyone to save face.
In other words, the older generation is delusional. Nobody is surprised except the older generation.
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#65We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. I love being able to quickly bring out the program that is already running in my head without having to worry about the grind of typing it into a format that the compiler understands. Dealing with API names. Syntax. Language quirks. Library go…
> AI-assisted coding, on the other hand, rekindled my passion for computers.
AI-assisted coding isn't a thing. Why would anyone pay you to code when your competitor spends 1 minute spelling out a problem and doing the same thing for 59 more problems?
As far as I'm concerned coding is dead as a profession, now we are Harness Managers.
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We finished the rewrite in two months. > racing towards a deadline imposed by external factors so we all ended up working a lot of hours. 2 months of 80 hour weeks is 4 months of regular weeks. Can you clarify how many hours your team was putting in? And how large was your team?
Probably averaging 70. 9 devs and 1 QA engineer.
Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour, on what was described as moderately greenfield (examining new implementations rather than comparing to old historical accidents).
How?
I don't want to sound flippant, but if the point is to add human thought to the mix, that's a high review rate even when examining small tweaks to an existing, working product, even with substantial AI help to pre-filter major gotchas before you bother spending a lot of human effort on the review. That's only 20-30wpm, but a review isn't just scanning or reading code, especially if you're trying to figure out how a new system which doesn't run yet will fit together.
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#67The author of the work that John Carmack is referencing is named Musashi, which is also the (coincidental?) name of a WW2 Japanese Yamato class battleship, which is quite fitting. Musashi the battleship having met its end at the hand of carrier launched aircraft, which remain a dominant technology to this day.
Aircraft carriers are to a small extent superseded in their own right by strategic bombers and ballistic missiles. We may see nuclear aircraft carriers eventually superseded to some extent by missile/drone swarms and missile/drone deployment platforms, or some other threat.
If the new dominant technology, military in the sense of being used to dominate your adversaries in any arena, relies on data centers, is that infrastructure considered pretty robust? Will that data center infrastructure fully supersede the nuclear powered aircraft carriers, as has been done to battleships? Do hardened data centers and the software they run represent the main locus of national front line capability? Are AI researchers more like WW2 pilots, or are they more akin to the people who worked on the Manhattan project?
This post makes me think harder about physical computer infrastructure. Continuing the metaphor, silicon fabs, computer manufacturing supply chains and their related infrastructure are certainly the WW2 drydocks of our modern conflict, the WW2 drydocks having been critical for the Americans to churn out aircraft carriers. And the drydocks were only one piece, but might have been considered one of the most brittle.
Some seemingly brittle pieces of AI/data center infrastructure today are the fabs and the communication links. As far as I know, the fiber optic cables connecting continents are so exposed it's almost ridiculous, the cables lay directly on the ocean floor. If severing these links favors one or another global actor, my main question is why hasn't this already been done? You can ask the same questions about severing oil pipelines and the various global shipping chokepoints. I do wonder if fiber optic cables are defensible at all in the final analysis. And what life would/will be like without fiber optic connection between continents.
I'm not sure how much more durable satellite links are, due to the cascading debris effects of Kessler syndrome.
A key idea is that if the transoceanic communication links between the Americas and Eurasia were to be cut, either powers based in Eurasia or a power based in the Americas would gain an advantage.
Semiconductor fabs... Well, if I were a military strategist in charge of national security, I definitely wouldn't publish the location of every fab. And a a self respecting superpower wouldn't leave its EUV machine production external, or would it?
Fabless semiconductor companies and AI researchers are critical to current national security capabilities in the way that people who developed radar were critical to WWII. In the long enough term some people think that eventually data centers and the software running inside will supersede and encompass these functions. The question being increasingly not if, but when. Some people think that if it can be done by a computer, it eventually will be.
It really is all about timing, the Japanese thought the Pacific conflict with the USA would be short.
John, if the introduction of the translation of Book of Five Rings is so good, could you please share the identifying information including the translator or the person who wrote the introduction?
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#68We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. I love being able to quickly bring out the program that is already running in my head without having to worry about the grind of typing it into a format that the compiler understands. Dealing with API names. Syntax. Language quirks. Library go…
> We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. Focusing on data structures, architecture and algorithms is what competency in programming has looked like since forever. Building systems out of smaller pieces gets you there. If your complaint above is that you were struggling with syntax…
I think you are not interpreting GP in the most charitable way. He simply said that not having to manually write all the code lets him spend his energy on bigger things. That is different from "struggling with syntax".
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#69We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. I love being able to quickly bring out the program that is already running in my head without having to worry about the grind of typing it into a format that the compiler understands. Dealing with API names. Syntax. Language quirks. Library go…
> We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms.
That exact sentence could have been said 20 years as well as 40 years ago. I don't know how you programmed pre-LLM, but line-by-line has long been a thing of the past, if it ever existed. I'm sure the folks creating the Apollo software were thinking a lot about data structures, software architecture and algorithms.
Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, there is a 100% test coverage requirement in both server and client, combined with AI-driven review rules that say all tests must be non-vacuous, look, your application works, right? so it doesn't really matter what you or i think, and this is why AI matters. but this, your "100% test coverage" - that is pure slop. just 20 years ago, all the most popular software shipped with NO tests. are you getting…
>> but this, your "100% test coverage" - that is pure slop. Not really, but I can see why some people think that. We treat 100% test coverage as "required, but by itself not sufficient". It doesn't give us false confidence that everything will be perfect or anything like that. But it provides us with the discipline to make sure no corners are cut, and the bugs that are fixed don't come back. One refreshing aspect was…
> One refreshing aspect was that during PR reviews we stopped debating whether something needed test coverage.
I’d be curious to know what percentage of the time spent implementing tests would have otherwise gone to discussions about whether to implement them or not. ;)