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

Don't be the out of touch Kung Fu master

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 425 posts

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

#311

Post by Daishiman »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #308
glimshe wrote: 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…

> one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. I see this a lot and I'm not sure why people don't think AI will be able to do this too. The self-play training that got them writing code can be used for this too.

Given enough context for a business problem, sure. But LLMs are not in a condition to judge how you should pick the technical solution to a business problem with several stakeholders, risks, and so on.

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

#312

Post by hermitcrab »

maplethorpe wrote: post #101

> But don’t be the out of touch Kung Fu master, heir to lifetimes of tradition, that gets mauled by an amateur MMA fighter. I have an issue with this analogy, since a professional MMA fighter is a highly skilled individual who has honed their body through years of training. A more apt analogy might be "don't be the kung fu master who believes they can survive an atomic bomb, dropped from far above by a pilot who does…

Some context. Many styles of Kung Fu/Gung Fu do not spar in any meaningful sense. Consequently, they have an overinflated opinion of their own ability and generally do very badly against MMA fighters (who do lots of sparring and pressure testing). There are lots of videos on Youtube of Kung Fu 'masters' getting battered by relatively inexperienced MMA fighters. This was sufficiently embarrassing for Chinese martial arts that they created a sport oriented form called Sanda.

I once saw an early black and white film of 2 Chinese Kung Fu masters fighting in a ring. Some sort of grudge match I think. It was embarrassing. You would see better technique outside a Wetherspoons pub at 2am.

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

#313

Post by Razengan »

scythe wrote: post #303
Razengan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I worry about the world that we will be living in when a whole generation has skipped learning the basics the hard way. Have you been schooled in farming? Raising livestock? Milking cattle? Does your ability to cook good food depend upon your ability to till soil and sow seeds? I don't mean that in ass way but re: what other comments said: > it feels like a rich getting richer scenario in all aspects of society Tha…

>Have you been schooled in farming? Raising livestock? Milking cattle? You're equating life skills to professional skills. I was not taught to milk a cow, but my milk comes from someone who was. The topic is whether software engineers in a professional context learned certain things about software.

> my milk comes from someone who was.

Your milk likely comes from an automated milker machine..

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

#314

Post by suriyaG »

tkel wrote: post #63
boshalfoshal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> exchange value in the captitalist political economy.

how can one exist in modern society without being an exchange value in the capitalist political economy?

linux is where it is because it is able to be a critical part of said capitalist political economy. even if you want to be a FOSS contributor all your life, you need someone to figure out the "economy" part of it.

food is a false equivalence in this case.

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

#315

Post by Razengan »

sriram_malhar wrote: post #299
Razengan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we stop AI, uninvent it, what then? We go back to how it was before AI And everyone will have a better life? Let's hear your plan

It isn't just AI. I would like a world without the poison of social media, without guns & bombs, without dangerous chemicals. Yes, in many many ways we'd be better off. We are accelerating the destruction of our planet. I don't have a better plan for humanity. I only have fear.

> a world without the poison of social media

No radio, no newspapers, no town criers, no gossip at the alewife's house?

> I don't have a better plan for humanity. I only have fear.

So your best move is to go around spreading that fear without offering ways to fix shit or inspiring anyone else to do so?

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

#316

Post by hermitcrab »

yallpendantools wrote: post #57
threethirtytwo wrote: post #48

HN 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".

I've been doing martial arts for more than 20 years, some in TMA, some in modern boxing/kickboxing. I have yet to meet an "out of touch Kung Fu master" in person. Nobody thinks they can clear the bar or win in a ruleset they haven't trained for. I mean I don't deny Frank Dux, George Dilman, and the DUST guy exist, nor do I support their claims. It's just that they are larger-than-life personalities to start with and…

>It's just that they are larger-than-life personalities

That is a very generous assessment of Frank Dux and George Dillman.

Dillman at least started off as the real deal. Dux was a total fantasist. I still find it hard to believe any bought into his 'blood sport' story, let alone made a film about it.

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

#317

Post by fooker »

Thanemate wrote: post #295
fooker wrote: 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…

>No, software engineering is fundamentally changed because of AI. No amount of digging our heads in the sand is going to undo that. Yet anyone who claims that fails to procure sufficient evidence or instruction on how exactly training the to-be software engineer in the age of AI should be. Until that happens, people still learn DSA, write code manually, and train their problem solving skills with programming exercise…

> fails to procure sufficient evidence or instruction on how exactly training the to-be software engineer in the age of AI should be.

Of course there's no instruction on how to succeed in a rapidly changing new field.

Do you think someone is more likely to succeed by getting their hands dirty and trying things out or waiting around for 'instruction' to be available?

> people still learn DSA, write code manually, and train their problem solving skills with programming exercises.

Maybe you're confusing computer science with software engineering? I agree that you'd still need to learn about algorithms, just like calculators do not reduce the need of learning algebra and trigonometry.

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

#318

Post by csallen »

lucianbr wrote: post #186
csallen wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't underestimate the power of motivated reasoning. Certain people don't like AI coding for various ideological reasons, and so they will, not coincidentally, consistently fail to find it productive or helpful.

As long as we don't underestimate the power of motivated reasoning for other certain people as well, who like AI coding for various ideological or financial reasons.

That's why I don't believe most AI hate I read on HN and I don't believe much AI hype I read on X.

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

#319

Post by abathologist »

glimshe wrote: 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.

This is what declarative programming gives us, not what LLM-based generation offers.

> 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.

Using natural instead of a formal language to get probabilistic results based on token fields is not bypassing arbitrary constraints of the compiler, it is dereliction of the responsibility to know and articulate precisely what you are specifying.

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

#320

Post by Seattle3503 »

Daishiman wrote: post #311
Seattle3503 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms. I see this a lot and I'm not sure why people don't think AI will be able to do this too. The self-play training that got them writing code can be used for this too.

Given enough context for a business problem, sure. But LLMs are not in a condition to judge how you should pick the technical solution to a business problem with several stakeholders, risks, and so on.

With the speed AI moves, a lot of technical decisions become reversible. And while engineering often makes decisions that could lie elsewhere in the business, outside of engineering, I could imagine those decisions moving elsewhere in a fully AI world.

Do you have examples of things that would be hard to train for? One that could be compensated for with changes elsewhere in the business process?

Post reply on HN