Live data from Hacker News

Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

twitter.com

241–250 of 427 posts

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#241
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see it as those who learn to use AI effectively are seeing massive benefits. Those that haven't seen those benefits are still skeptical. Someone who's seen the benfits, knows, with proof, the benefits exist. They're like Copernicus who realized the plants go around the sun, not the earth. The others are still like those who look up, see the planets go around the sky, and can't believe the earth is not at the center…

> those who learn to use AI effectively are seeing massive benefits

The massive benefits should be visible to outside observers as well, but where are they?

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it works for you, great! Just keep going. I only have the nagging question that if it’s so easy, why would the clients not do it by themselves? Certainly they understand their problems better than you and they can adapt to rising issues faster if their in-house team does it themselves. And certainly what kind of AI you can access, they can too and perhaps even more. So what will remain your value propositions? I’m…

> I only have the nagging question that if it’s so easy, why would the clients not do it by themselves? Plenty of reasons, including: 1. They don't (yet) know how to use AI to accomplish what they need. 2. The ROI is still meaningfully positive and they don't want to have to do it themselves. 3. Having a third-party do the work provides protection for decision-makers. If the project fails, the third-party takes the b…

I recently tried to encourage my smart, technical, but not-programmer friend to build an app using LLMs and he was just like, "I still have no idea where to even start."

People talk a lot about how "real programmers" used to have to clean up or actually deploy everyone's half-baked MS Access app, and that sort of thing will probably still be the case for a while.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#243
post #3

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. 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. Why? What makes you think your data structure design, architecture and algorithms are ever going to surpass AI in the near future? You honestly can't see a (near) future where those 3 elements are done by AI, not by you?

[deleted]

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#244
It's a good analogy that's probably occurred independently to a lot of us. Here's my version from a private email a few weeks ago:

> [...] I don't like the "great equalizer" effect. [...] Like a kung-fu expert who wandered into a wild-west saloon of drunks all packing six-shooters. (I'm still working on this metaphor.)

Might as well share the entire off-the-cuff email, replying to a great software engineer friend who recently went academic, when they asked what I thought about AI development.

> "You're absolutely right," as the chatbots say.

> I think Claude Code (which I think is currently regarded as the best brand for software development) is for banging out *something* when you don't care so much about the quality. Like most applications of generative AI (homework cheating, customer service, usual corporate ticket-closing).

> And I'm definitely not thinking through the problem very well. The first time I noticed this was on UI design, where Claude would emit a generic *something*, and then the mode is to make incremental tweaks, rather than going through the mental exercises and holistic thinking.

> So sometimes I'm thinking like a non-technical manager, giving initial spec, and then iterating on things I notice -- not thinking like a designer, architect, or engineer.

> Or, like a senior engineer who has to mentor a hyperactive intern who bullshits and plagiarizes like crazy, and makes empty apologies like a sociopath when caught, but is the CEO's nephew, so you can't just fire and blacklist them. You just have to get *something* out of them.

> I can do much better design and better implementation myself, but it's good enough. And it's better than at least half the industry software engineers, so a lot of people who never cared much nor got very good, are in trouble. And management is often a poor judge of skill, if they even care.

> Besides the questions of its performance and utility, and all the ethics questions, I don't like the "great equalizer" effect. Now a lot more people can do (or seem to do) many of things I can do. And I'm having a lot of trouble job-hunting, and companies mostly want people to be using or building AI. Hence learning the robo-plagiarism tools. Like a kung-fu expert who wandered into a wild-west saloon of drunks all packing six-shooters. (I'm still working on this metaphor.)

That conversation might've started when I showed friend my new gen-AI portfolio site, so the context would be realist assessment and handling it, spoken to someone who already knows I'm an enthusiastic hardcore engineer.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they've boasted[1] about their generated code being so good that they add basically zero value and that they're riding out the rentseeking for as long as possible. Meanwhile they've apparently played with LLM porting of Postgres (or Postgres features?) and "would not put it in production"[2], so we can also guess the kind and scope of features being discussed here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4959…

They're not "adding no value", the SLA is the value. I have a business problem, and I pay you to solve it and support your solution for me, is a completely different proposition than standing up your own solution as a non-technical org and maintaining it.

> They're not "adding no value", the SLA is the value

The code their Astra+Fable setup, automatically generated from requests customers leave in voicemails, is apparently so good they never correct it. If the stories being woven are true, the SLA is literally just a middleman's 100k cut.

At the very least there might be some particulars here that aren't universally applicable.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#246
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you have proper real understanding of data structures and algorithms without at same time having line-by-line mental model? Or do you blindly trust what machine tells you at whatever time you are communicating with it? Architecture I might give not needing line-by-line model. But I really doubt the same with data structures and algorithms. Those are in the end build from lines.

Djikstra seemed to manage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra#Use_of_tech...

He still thought in terms of what the actual code would need to be, at that level of precision, and also wrote pseudo-code.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#247
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

> Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour,

It's possible, I think, but humans cannot do repetitive mental work (like reviewing code) constantly without atrophy.

Can I review 130 SLoC/hour? Sure. Can I do it 80 hours a week? No. Not even a single 8-hour workday.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it works for you, great! Just keep going. I only have the nagging question that if it’s so easy, why would the clients not do it by themselves? Certainly they understand their problems better than you and they can adapt to rising issues faster if their in-house team does it themselves. And certainly what kind of AI you can access, they can too and perhaps even more. So what will remain your value propositions? I’m…

> I only have the nagging question that if it’s so easy, why would the clients not do it by themselves? Plenty of reasons, including: 1. They don't (yet) know how to use AI to accomplish what they need. 2. The ROI is still meaningfully positive and they don't want to have to do it themselves. 3. Having a third-party do the work provides protection for decision-makers. If the project fails, the third-party takes the b…

Yes but it's cheaper?

Of course they will do it by themselves.

Because it's cheaper.

I mean it's weird that we all imagine reasons why we're still relevant when we have set fire to the thing that made us indispensable.

It's cheaper.

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#249

John Carmack is a personal hero of mine, so it pains me to say this: Carmack hasn't produced anything noteworthy since AI was invented, therefore, how productive can it really be? It could be he is doing incredible work in private... but it could also be that he's lost in the weeds, because AI is so counterproductive while feeling the opposite? I remain a skeptic.

I'm a practical optimist. I see us as being in the age of engineering for AI -- like the early days of the steam engine. We're going to get a ton of things wrong and impractically implemented. But we don't anticipate the train conductor to build the steam engine on their train -- we just expect it to work as targeted.

(Note I'm not being pollyannish here -- a lot of codegen downright sucks).

Re: Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

#250
post #117
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, software engineering is fundamentally changed because of AI. No amount of digging our heads in the sand is going to undo that. For example, the traditional best practice cycle of "small incremental change, code review, test, commit" is pretty much obsolete now. The way ten collaborating agents can make short work of a complex project is not something that fits in with our existing software engineering wisdom at a…

I'm not talking about the transient aspects of producing software; I'm happy to accept that AI will change that, but also I feel that it will change it in ways that really aren't very hard to learn, and truth be told the more time that passes the smaller the gap will get as the agents get more capable. what I am talking about is principles that govern what good software looks like, what properties it has to satisfy i…

> what good software looks like

I think this will change quite a bit too. Code being readable is one of our core tenets. Functions fitting within, approximately, a screen of code used to be ideal.

Modern AI as already past solving that problem. You can give it a million line codebase, ask where something specific is happening, and it'll tell you in less than a minute.

If we can de-emphasize readability, what do we gain?

Custom hand rolled containers and data structures for your use cases are somewhat frowned upon unless really needed. Well, probably not anymore.

What about a manually inlined mega-function with loops unrolled that pre-empts some of the compiler's work? No way that would fly a couple of years ago. Already seeing this in performance sensitive code.

Post reply on HN