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

391–400 of 427 posts

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

#391

Post by magarnicle »

huurtehoog wrote: post #376
zulux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about religious faith is that most minds can hold only one at a time. I may believe in an oddly resurrected deity who took the shape of a man , but I don't have room for anything crazier. "We are fools for Christ's sake." 1 Corinthians 4:10

Whatever your view of religion, you are not very good at literary analysis. The verse you quote, in full: "We have given up our wisdom for Christ, but you have insight because of Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are honored, but we are dishonored" Not quite the same of what you imply is it?

But now I don't know what you think it means. Who do you think "you" and "we" are in this quote?

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

#393

Post by fooker »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #332
zem wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> truth be told the more time that passes the smaller the gap will get as the agents get more capable Yup. A lot of work is going in to reducing the skill required to operate AI agents.

> reducing the skill required to operate AI agents

For accomplishing the same task, yes.

But given these tools straight out of science fiction, why on earth would you be stuck doing the same things? There's no point spending human thought over something an agent has just automated yesterday.

Think bigger, take on more ambitious projects that are perpetually at the limits of what you and AI can accomplish.

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

#394

Post by JuniperMesos »

tclancy wrote: post #227
JuniperMesos wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not lumping everyone in, more observing we are still amplifying the signal from radio stations that should have ceased broadcasting years ago.

I don't think that John Carmack or any of the other people you mentioned are categorically not worth listening to because in some cases the accomplishments that originally made them famous are decades old. If you think that Carmack is wrong on this specific point, make an argument for why; I for one don't think he's wrong, and I think that putting him into a category of people who "should have ceased broadcasting decades ago" is simply avoiding engaging with what he actually said.

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

#395

Post by Terr_ »

zulux wrote: post #20
tclancy wrote: 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…

The nice thing about religious faith is that most minds can hold only one at a time. I may believe in an oddly resurrected deity who took the shape of a man , but I don't have room for anything crazier. "We are fools for Christ's sake." 1 Corinthians 4:10

> most minds can hold only one at a time. [...] I don't have room for anything crazier.

I feel you aren't accounting for exactly how much "crazier" churches/sects can be, both currently and historically.

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

#396

Post by Herbstluft »

_zoltan_ wrote: post #97
turpentine wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Focusing on data structures, architecture and algorithms is what competency in programming has looked like since forever yes, being able to bang out leetcode hard from head on an interview on paper matters so much... oh wait. it does not. in the real world, outside of interview questions, it hardly matters. when it comes there, I'll optimizite it, but getting the first system up and running in a way I want is way m…

So which is it now? Do you hate thinking about algorithms and data structures or do you hate writing code? Or both?

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

#397

Post by danipark »

hermitcrab wrote: post #153

This resonated with me as someone who: has read the book of 5 rings (translated), has done quite a lot of martial arts and has been coding for ~50 years. I work for myself developing apps and selling online. So I have no employer pushing to use AI. But I feel a bit like a dinosaur watching the incoming comet. Currently, I just use MSCopilot as enhanced StackOverflow and I find it useful for that. But I have been nowh…

There are two ways to do this: 1. Subscribe to ChatGPT Pro (or the 20x version) for just one month and use Codex to generate the system you want—whatever it may be. 2. Purchase a Mac Studio or DGX Spark and use the latest local models to securely audit your code.

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

#398

Post by huurtehoog »

magarnicle wrote: post #391
huurtehoog wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever your view of religion, you are not very good at literary analysis. The verse you quote, in full: "We have given up our wisdom for Christ, but you have insight because of Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are honored, but we are dishonored" Not quite the same of what you imply is it?

But now I don't know what you think it means. Who do you think "you" and "we" are in this quote?

Go read Corinthians? I'm just pointing out it was quoted halfway through to make it sound like Paul just wrote "we dumb" in a letter.

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

#399

Post by Daishiman »

Planktonne wrote: post #357
Daishiman wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People see orgs tackling more problems and resolving bugs faster.

I don't agree that people do see that, and if they do, it's hardly an overwhelming trend.

I see my org delivering twice as many features and implementing way more tools that actually solve problems.

The issue is that doesn’t necessarily mean that customers will pay more, as most of the features of software are not actually core.

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

#400

Post by Daishiman »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #320
Daishiman wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, if Alex from BizDev is a scheming moron who consistently lies about the priority of features, it’s hard to keep an LLM on the loop about it when transcribing meetings and feature requests. If your boss is gonna be unavailable for a month and that means that a junior devs garbage PRs will be getting merged because the second in command is much laxer then you need to be aware for that and so on.

What I mean is that these things decant into technical decisions and even with all the AI in the world running a DB schema migration does not become any more trivial.

Post reply on HN