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

The Leverage Paradox in AI

indiehackers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#11

Post by ssharp »

cortesoft wrote: post #10

Do people really try to one-shot their AI tasks? I have just started using AI to code, and I found the process very similar to regular coding… you give a detailed task, then you iterate by finding specific issues and giving the AI detailed instructions on how to fix the issues. It works great, but I can’t imagine skipping the refinement process.

Every tool I've tinkered with that hints at one-shotting (or one-shot and then refine) ends up with a messy app that might be 60-70% of what you're looking for but since the foundation is not solid, you're never going to get the extra 30-40% of your initial prompt, let the multiples of work needed to bolt of future functionality.

Compare that to the approach you're using (which is what I'm also doing), and you're able have have AI stay much closer to what you're looking for, be less prone to damaging hallucinations, and also guide it to a foundation that's stable. The downside is that it's a lot more work. You might multiply your productivity by some single digit.

To me, that 2nd approach is much more reasonable than trying to 100x your productivity but actually end up getting less done because you end up stuck in a rabbit hole you don't know you're in and you'll never refine your way out of it.

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#12

Post by pcfwik »

> This is the leverage paradox. New technologies give us greater leverage to do more tasks better. But because this leverage is usually introduced into competitive environments, the result is that we end up having to work just as hard as before (if not harder) to remain competitive and keep up with the joneses.

Off-topic, but in biology circles I've heard this type of situation (where "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place" because your competitors are constantly improving as well) called a "Red Queen's race" and really like the picture that analogy paints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_race

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#13

Post by sdesol »

cortesoft wrote: post #10

Do people really try to one-shot their AI tasks? I have just started using AI to code, and I found the process very similar to regular coding… you give a detailed task, then you iterate by finding specific issues and giving the AI detailed instructions on how to fix the issues. It works great, but I can’t imagine skipping the refinement process.

> Do people really try to one-shot their AI tasks?

Yes. I almost always end with "Do not generate any code unless it can help in our discussions as this is the design stage" I would say, 95% of my code for https://github.com/gitsense/chat in the last 6 months were AI generated, and I would say 80% were one shots.

It is important to note that I can easily get into the 30+ messages of back and forth before any code is generated. For complex tasks, I will literally spend an hour or two (that can span days) chatting and thinking about a problem with the LLM and I do expect the LLM to one shot them.

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#14

Post by EGreg »

pcfwik wrote: post #12

> This is the leverage paradox. New technologies give us greater leverage to do more tasks better. But because this leverage is usually introduced into competitive environments, the result is that we end up having to work just as hard as before (if not harder) to remain competitive and keep up with the joneses. Off-topic, but in biology circles I've heard this type of situation (where "it takes all the running you ca…

Also known as induced demand, and why adding a lane on the highway doesn’t help for long

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#16

Post by bobnamob »

sdesol wrote: post #7
satisfice wrote: post #3

This article says that the stairs have been turned into an escalator. But I think it’s an escalator to slop. Therefore, it doesn’t affect my work at all. The only thing that affects my prospects is the hype about AI. Be a purple cow, the guy says. Seems to me that not using AI makes me a purple cow.

> Therefore, it doesn’t affect my work at all. But that isn't what the author is talking about. The issues is, your good code can be equal to slop that works. What the author says needs to happen is, you need to find a better way to stand out. I suspect for many businesses where software superiority is not a core requirement, slop that works will be treated the same as non-slop code.

> slop that works

Until that slop that works leads to therac-26 or PostOfficeScandal2 electric boogaloo. Neither of those applications required software superior to their competitors, just working software

The average quality of software can only trend down so far before real world problems start manifesting, even outside of businesses with a hard requirement on "software superiority"

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#17

Post by sefrost »

EGreg wrote: post #14
pcfwik wrote: post #12

> This is the leverage paradox. New technologies give us greater leverage to do more tasks better. But because this leverage is usually introduced into competitive environments, the result is that we end up having to work just as hard as before (if not harder) to remain competitive and keep up with the joneses. Off-topic, but in biology circles I've heard this type of situation (where "it takes all the running you ca…

Also known as induced demand, and why adding a lane on the highway doesn’t help for long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I feel that I understand the leverage paradox concept, and the induced demand concept, but I don't understand how they are the same concept. Can you explain the connection a little more?

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#18

Post by satisfice »

sdesol wrote: post #7
satisfice wrote: post #3

This article says that the stairs have been turned into an escalator. But I think it’s an escalator to slop. Therefore, it doesn’t affect my work at all. The only thing that affects my prospects is the hype about AI. Be a purple cow, the guy says. Seems to me that not using AI makes me a purple cow.

> Therefore, it doesn’t affect my work at all. But that isn't what the author is talking about. The issues is, your good code can be equal to slop that works. What the author says needs to happen is, you need to find a better way to stand out. I suspect for many businesses where software superiority is not a core requirement, slop that works will be treated the same as non-slop code.

You are focusing on code. That is the wrong focus. Creating code was never the job. The job was being trustworthy about what I deliver and how.

AI is not worthy of trust, and the sort of reasonable people I want to deal with won’t trust it and don’t. They deal with me because I am not a simulation of someone who cares— I am the real thing. I am a purple cow in terms of personal credibility and responsibility.

To the degree that the application of AI is useful to me without putting my credibility at risk, I will use it. It does have its uses.

(BTW, although I write code as part of my work, I stopped being a full-time coder in my teens. I am tester, testing consultant, expert witness, and trainer, now.)

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#19

Post by satisfice »

bobnamob wrote: post #16
sdesol wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, it doesn’t affect my work at all. But that isn't what the author is talking about. The issues is, your good code can be equal to slop that works. What the author says needs to happen is, you need to find a better way to stand out. I suspect for many businesses where software superiority is not a core requirement, slop that works will be treated the same as non-slop code.

> slop that works Until that slop that works leads to therac-26 or PostOfficeScandal2 electric boogaloo. Neither of those applications required software superior to their competitors, just working software The average quality of software can only trend down so far before real world problems start manifesting, even outside of businesses with a hard requirement on "software superiority"

Anyone can say that something works. Lots of things look like they work even though they harbor severe and elusive bugs.

Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI

#20

Post by fxtentacle »

My prediction is that the next differentiator will be response time.

First we got transparent UIs, now everyone has them. Then we got custom icons, then Font Awesome commoditized them. Then flat UI until everyone copied it. Then those weird hand-painted Lottie illustrations, and now thanks to Gen-AI everyone has them. (Then Apple launched their 2nd gen transparent UI.)

But the one thing that neither caffeinated undergrads nor LLMs can pull off is making software efficient. That's why software that responds quickly to user input will feel magical and stand out in a sea of slow and bloated AI slop.

Post reply on HN