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

Code is cheap. Show me the talk

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 237 posts

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#101

Post by noosphr »

atomicnature wrote: post #26
leecommamichael wrote: post #14

> Ignoring outright bad code, in a world where functional code is so abundant that “good” and “bad” are indistinguishable, ultimately, what makes functional AI code slop or non-slop? I'm sorry, but this is an indicator for me that the author hasn't had a critical eye for quality in some time. There is massive overlap between "bad" and "functional." More than ever. The barrier-to-entry to programming got irresponsibly…

This is the "artisanal clothing argument". I'd think there'll be a dip in code quality (compared to human) initially due to "AI machinery" due to its immaturity. But over-time on a mass-scale - we are going to see an improvement in the quality of software artifacts. It is easier to 'discipline' the top 5 AI agents in the planet - rather than try to get a million distributed devs ("artisans") to produce high quality r…

The issue is that code isn't clothing. It's the clothing factory. We aren't artisans sewing clothing. We're production engineers deciding on layouts for robots to make clothes most efficiently.

I see this type error of thinking all the time. Engineers don't make objects of type A, we make functions of type A -> B or higher order.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#102

Post by ares623 »

pton_xd wrote: post #100

Code, talk, who cares. Show me the product. If it works and is useful I will incorporate it into my life. Ultimately no one cares how the sausage is made.

Uhh I kinda care? And some people do too? People have given software social permission so far. I have a feeling that it’s about to change. Engineers are thinking too narrowly about the effects of LLM assisted coding. They only see the shiny bits that benefit them.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#103

Post by chasd00 »

javier_e06 wrote: post #70
enlyth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A software engineer with an LLM is still infinitely more powerful than a commoner with an LLM. The engineer can debug, guide, change approaches, and give very specific instructions if they know what needs to be done. The commoner can only hammer the prompt repeatedly with "this doesn't work can you fix it". So yes, our jobs are changing rapidly, but this doesn't strike me as being obsolete any time soon.

I listened to an segment on the radio where a College Teacher told their class that it was okay to use AI assist you during test provided: 1. Declare in advance that AI is being used. 2. Provided verbatim the questions and answer session. 3. Explain why the answer given by the AI is good answer. Part of the grade will include grading 1, 2, 3 Fair enough.

It’s better than nothing but the problem is students will figure out feeding step 2 right back to the AI logged in via another session to get 3.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#104

Post by chasd00 »

wrs wrote: post #85
gipp wrote: post #5

I see a lot of the same (well thought out) pushback on here whenever these kinds of blind hype articles pop up. But my biggest objection to this "engineering is over" take is one that I don't see much. Maybe this is just my Big Tech glasses, but I feel like for a large, mature product, if you break down the time and effort required to bring a change to production, the actual writing of code is like... ten, maybe twen…

My recent experience demonstrates this. I had a couple weeks of happily cranking out new code and refactors at high speed with Claude’s help, then a week of what felt like total stagnation, and now I’m back to high velocity again. What happened in the middle was I didn’t know what I wanted . I hadn’t worked out the right data model for the application yet, so I couldn’t tell Claude what to do. And if you tell it to g…

Ive been using LLMs through the web to help with discreet pieces of code and scripts for a while now. I’ve been putting it off (out of fear?) but I finally sat down with Claude Code on the console and an empty directory to see what the fuss was about. Over about a total of 4 hrs and maybe $15 pay as you go it became clear things are drastically different now in web dev. I’m not saying changed for good or bad just things have definitely changed and will never go back.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#105

Post by w10-1 »

It might be a mistake to think in terms of production costs.

The real "cost" of software is reliance: what risk do your API clients or customers take in relying on you? This is just as true for free-as-in-beer software as for SaaS with enterprise SLA's.

In software and in professions, providers have some combination of method and qualifications or authority which justifies reliance by their clients. Both education and software have reduced the reliance on naked authority, but a good track record remains the gold standard.

So providers (individuals and companies) have to ask how much of their reputation do they want to risk on any new method (AI, agile, ...)? Initially, it's always a promising boost in productivity. But then...

So the real question is what "Show me" means - for a quick meet, an enterprise sale, an enduring human-scale consumer dependence...

So, prediction: AI companies and people that can "show me" will be the winners.

(Unfortunately, we've also seen competitive advantage accrue to dystopian hiding of truth and risk, which would have the same transaction-positive effect but shift and defer the burden of risk. Let's hope...)

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#106

Post by lo_zamoyski »

atomicnature wrote: post #93
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> industry machinery could match the average artisan or even beat the average Whether it could is distinct from whether it will. I'm sure you've noticed the decline in the quality of clothing. Markets a mercurial and subject to manipulation through hype (fast fashion is just a marketing scheme to generate revenue, but people bought into the lie). With code, you have a complicating factor, namely, that LLMs are now co…

I don't agree with the limited point about fast fashion/enthittification, etc. Quick check: Do you want to go back to pre-industrial era then - when according to you, you had better options for clothing? Personally, I wouldn't want that - because I believe as a customer, I am better served now (cost/benefit wise) than then. As to the point about recursive quality decline - I don't take it seriously, I believe in huma…

> Quick check: Do you want to go back to pre-industrial era then - when according to you, you had better options for clothing?

This does not follow. Fast fashion as described is historically recent. An an example, I have a cheap t-shift from the mid-90s that is in excellent condition after three decades of use. Now, I buy a t-shirt in the same price range, and it begins to fall apart in less than a year. This decline in the quality of clothing is well known and documented, and it is incredibly wasteful.

The point is that this development is the product of consumerist cultural presuppositions that construct a particular valuation that encourages such behavior, especially one that fetishizes novelty for its own sake. In the absence of such a valuation, industry would take a different direction and behave differently. Companies, of course, promote fast fashion, because it means higher sales.

Things are not guaranteed to become better. This is the fallacy of progress, the notion that the state of the world at t+1 must be better than it was at t. At the very least, it demands an account of what constitutes "better".

> I don't take it seriously, I believe in human ingenuity, and believe humans will overcome these obstacles

That's great, but that's not an argument, only a sentiment.

I also didn't say we'll experience necessarily a decline, only that LLMs are now trained on data produced by human beings. That means the substance and content is entirely derived from patterns produced by us, hence the appearance of intelligence in the results it produces. LLMs merely operate over statistical distributions in that data. If LLMs reduce the amount of content made by human beings, then training on the generated data is circular. "Ingenuity" cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. Something cannot come from nothing. I didn't say there can't be this something, but there does need to be a something from which an LLM or whatever can benefit.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#107

Post by atomicnature »

noosphr wrote: post #101
atomicnature wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the "artisanal clothing argument". I'd think there'll be a dip in code quality (compared to human) initially due to "AI machinery" due to its immaturity. But over-time on a mass-scale - we are going to see an improvement in the quality of software artifacts. It is easier to 'discipline' the top 5 AI agents in the planet - rather than try to get a million distributed devs ("artisans") to produce high quality r…

The issue is that code isn't clothing. It's the clothing factory. We aren't artisans sewing clothing. We're production engineers deciding on layouts for robots to make clothes most efficiently. I see this type error of thinking all the time. Engineers don't make objects of type A, we make functions of type A -> B or higher order.

Go concrete. In FAANG engineering jobs now what % is this factory designer category vs what % is writing some mundane glue code, moving data around in CRUD calls, or putting in a monitoring metric etc?

Once you look at the present engineering org compositions see what's the error in thinking.

There are other analogy issues in your response which I won't nitpick

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#108

Post by datatrashfire »

premise is wrong. have seen a number of claude/codex disasters that never make it to production with clients, yet consumed an enormous amount of human time and bandwidth.

expertise and effort is and will continue to be for the forseeable future essential.

talk, like this, still cheap.

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#109

Post by JoelMcCracken »

Waterluvian wrote: post #53
enlyth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A software engineer with an LLM is still infinitely more powerful than a commoner with an LLM. The engineer can debug, guide, change approaches, and give very specific instructions if they know what needs to be done. The commoner can only hammer the prompt repeatedly with "this doesn't work can you fix it". So yes, our jobs are changing rapidly, but this doesn't strike me as being obsolete any time soon.

I think it's a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You need to know what you're even asking for and how to ask for it. And you need to know how to evaluate if you've got it. This actually reminds me so strongly of the Pakleds from Star Trek TNG. They knew they wanted to be strong and fast, but the best they could do is say, "make us strong." They had no ability to evaluate that their AI (sorry, Geordi) was giving the…

Oh wow this is a great reference/image/metaphor for "software engineers" who misuse these tools - "the great pakledification" of software

Re: Code is cheap. Show me the talk

#110

Post by noosphr »

atomicnature wrote: post #107
noosphr wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that code isn't clothing. It's the clothing factory. We aren't artisans sewing clothing. We're production engineers deciding on layouts for robots to make clothes most efficiently. I see this type error of thinking all the time. Engineers don't make objects of type A, we make functions of type A -> B or higher order.

Go concrete. In FAANG engineering jobs now what % is this factory designer category vs what % is writing some mundane glue code, moving data around in CRUD calls, or putting in a monitoring metric etc? Once you look at the present engineering org compositions see what's the error in thinking. There are other analogy issues in your response which I won't nitpick

Production egineers don't design the looms in a weaving factory either.
Post reply on HN