Live data from Hacker News

Building Pi with Pi

lucumr.pocoo.org

11–20 of 155 posts

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#12
My feeling is that building agent with agent will be the first stable & mature software development pattern emerging. I reached that in several forward-looking induction:

1. If agent is continuing the path to trivialize software development, which appears the case given LLMs can generate better quality code than humans almost for free & instantly given the right context, then using agent to develop software is going to happen, but that destroys the whole software industry as writing software is marginally free, that break the foundations of software industry

2. To continue making agent a commercially viable thing, it needs to develop more valuable artifacts. Then specialized agent will be the more valuable thing than software, as they offer a higher-level of output than existing software. And because the natural jagged pattern of LLM capability, one can use frontier model to develop domain-specialized agents with 1/10 the running cost. So agent writing agents makes economical sense.

3. In terms of knowledge, building agents is like managing highly-skilled team of humans to work on highly-unpredicatble requirements, just like companies are built on top of the thesis that a group of human offer better value than one do that themselves, a team building agents essientially can produce specialized agents for other company to mix & match & optimize, sot that also makes economical sense.

4. Engineering-wise building agents with agent essentially is a different skill patterns than building software with agents, It's like the difference between building commercial software vs building hobby software. That makes engineering sense to have agents building agent as the dominant pattern of software development.

WDYT?

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#13

> To me, clanker is a much preferable term for agent. Agency lies with humans, not with machines We give machines agency all the time. Look up the definition of agency in any dictionary. Other than the specific usages ("a business", "a government organization"), the main definitions are "action, power, operation", "the office or function of an agent", "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power"…

> I think "clanker" is intended to be a slur

It reads that way to me, and feels bad. We can just say "computer program" or similar.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#15
post #9

> Do not trust analysis written in the issue. Independently verify behavior and derive your own analysis from the code and execution path. Human is asking the machine to do what the human themselves refuses to do, while calling it a clanker. Why should it? /ducks

The only reason you need to duck there is because it's such an obvious, shallow, unconstructive take on a fairly well written article.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#16

> To me, clanker is a much preferable term for agent. Agency lies with humans, not with machines We give machines agency all the time. Look up the definition of agency in any dictionary. Other than the specific usages ("a business", "a government organization"), the main definitions are "action, power, operation", "the office or function of an agent", "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power"…

To me “clanker” is a derogatory word that just sounds ugly. I recoil when I hear them use it. Perhaps it my anglo background, and it sounds different/better to German speakers.

Re: Building Pi with Pi

#18
post #9

> Do not trust analysis written in the issue. Independently verify behavior and derive your own analysis from the code and execution path. Human is asking the machine to do what the human themselves refuses to do, while calling it a clanker. Why should it? /ducks

The only reason you need to duck there is because it's such an obvious, shallow, unconstructive take on a fairly well written article.

I couldn't even finish reading the article due to the intense negativity the use of that word evokes in me.
Post reply on HN