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

What we lost the last time code got cheap

poppastring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#101

Post by teiferer »

pizzly wrote: post #81
croemer wrote: post #21

Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.

Sometimes I feel like we are entering a new witch hunt era but for LLM generated text. Before clicking submit I am sometimes afraid that the text will be labled "LLM Generated" even though its not. Enough people classify you as a witch and you get burnt. Though in this case you only receive nasty comments, down votes and possible social media bans. Edit: In my observation it seems that people's opinions that do not a…

We need to stand up against this by refusing to adapt. Let them scream. They are wrong. I refuse to tune texts into less-fine-tuned form just to avoid being labeled LLM output.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#102

Post by adrian_b »

croemer wrote: post #21

Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.

There is a reason why such a pattern is frequent in LLM-generated text.

Any good human-written text that provides useful information is likely to highlight in this way or in equivalent ways the contrast between what the reader is expected to incorrectly believe and the reality.

When the reader already knows what the text has to say, that text is superfluous.

Therefore a text that provides new and unexpected information, so it is a useful text, must use some means to explain to the readers the errors of their ways.

It may use simple superposition like "it is not ... it is ..." or it may be more verbose and add "but", "however", "nonetheless" etc.

I believe that it is counterproductive to use this kind of pattern as a method for detection for AI-written texts, because it is normal for it to exists in useful human-written texts.

What should be commented is whether that claim is true, i.e. whether indeed the second part with "it is ..." is true, or whether all of the pattern is superfluous, because none of the expected readers is not already aware that the first part with "it is not ..." is true.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#103

Post by kadhirvelm »

zeeveener wrote: post #22
kadhirvelm wrote: post #13

Curious what other teams are doing to keep encouraging people to think critically about their code? I’ve been finding it harder to keep people motivated, keep them engaged with all the changes coming in. And I can’t blame them, it’s been overwhelming. Is everyone else just using more AI..?

Personally, guiding junior teammates down the path away from purely "Writer of Code" to "Implementer of Functionality" has been working well for me. If you get them involved in the design process, they feel heard. Feeling heard is one surefire way to have a person feel involved. Feeling involved fosters a sense of ownership and pride which in turn helps keep a person engaged.

Yeah I like that, there’s probably something to this full stack builder persona that could keep people motivated long term. So long as they feel ownership, seems like that’s a pretty good bet for long term engagement

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#104

Post by evilduck »

kadhirvelm wrote: post #13

Curious what other teams are doing to keep encouraging people to think critically about their code? I’ve been finding it harder to keep people motivated, keep them engaged with all the changes coming in. And I can’t blame them, it’s been overwhelming. Is everyone else just using more AI..?

I had a senior engineer last week just completely fail to implement an entire subsection of acceptance criteria on a story before creating a PR and got the answer/attempted excuse that the AI agent "missed it" and they didn't double check the work. This is something I haven't seen a senior engineer do in recent memory prior to AI entering the workplace, they at least read the requirements back then even if they misinterpreted them.

Literally just a few minutes ago I had a senior architect send out a clearly Claude-generated .docx project proposal filled to the brim with stuff that is outright not permitted in our organization due to legal constraints and IT policy decisions. This guy has been with the organization for a few years so none of our limitations should have been a surprise. I got to page two before I replied that it was unprofessional to send me AI slop and expect me to be the first to read it.

Some people seem really great with AI as a force multiplier. For others their brain just shuts off entirely. Sorting out how it will affect each person is the real challenge now. We don't even mandate AI usage, it's just there if you want to use it which makes it even more frustrating. As for my approach? A one on one discussion reiterating my expectations that they remain thoughtfully engaged and if needed followed up by formal verbal warnings and then PIPs.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#105

Post by anotherevan »

stetrain wrote: post #68
xienze wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like clockwork, every single thread about something AI-related has someone expressing their disgust at passages of LLM-written text. In many cases by the same people who are enthusiastically embracing LLM-generated software. Why don't we show the same level of contempt for LLM-authored software as we do for even the slightest hint of LLM-authored text in a blog post?

We don't like LLMs throwing giant walls of code in PRs at repos and expecting devs to read and respond to all of them. That's kind of similar to written content being posted and linked. There's an expectation that you are asking someone to take time to read it, and with LLMs now the cost to generate things to be read is a lot lower but our attention and capacity to read them remains the same.

I don’t like humans throwing accusations that something was written by an LLM if they don’t like it. The constant insinuations that us machines are the ones with poor taste is fookin’ tiresome.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#106

Post by andybak »

mbauman wrote: post #7
andybak wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't one of the common criticisms of AI code that it's a bit too keen to write extensive comments - even when they probably aren't needed?

Well the comments tend to be superfluous "whats" (describing the code itself) instead of the more helpful "whys." And they're almost never the most useful "why nots".

That's different to my (recent) experience. I get fairly insightful "whys". At least on bugfix commits.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#107

Post by csallen »

teiferer wrote: post #100
csallen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. I'm surprised people aren't taking the time to edit this very specific kind of phrasing out of their writing. It's such a common AI tell now that, even when writing by hand, I'd just avoid it entirely. Then again, I hated that LLMs co-opted the em-dash, and I refuse to stop using it, so I suppose I get it.

Why would they have to? Just to avoid being accused of using a slop machine? If that is the only criticism you have against LLM produced text, then there is no problem. And I'm saying this as somebody who is strongly against LLM-generated content of this form.

I have no problem with AI-generated text.

But I do have somewhat of a problem with unedited text. Personally, I even take the time to edit my HN comments.

And, for the same reason I'd have a problem watching the same episode of the same show every day, I have a problem with reading text that feels like a super derivative clone of tons of other writing. Which is usually what you get when you don't edit your AI-generated text.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#108

Post by soperj »

wiremine wrote: post #53

> The code they [LLMs] produce is often fine. It works. It passes tests. It might ship as-is. I don't disagree, but I've been thinking about this a bit: a lot of _human_ written code was/is less-than-fine. And a lot of human devs didn't understand the context when they wrote it. I'm not advocating that we fire devs, or evangelizing that LLms are awesome. But I do wish there was a slightly more honest take on the pre-…

> a lot of _human_ written code was/is less-than-fine.

At least at my work place this is often the case whenever we bring in contractors who will never be tasked with maintaining their code.

Middle management rarely ever gives us the time to fix this broken mess, and when they do, it's actually in a neat maintainable state.

We recently took 700mb of compiled code and reduced it to under 40mb just by getting rid of useless libraries, and removing unused code, and consolidating all the build objects into one object. This code ran significantly faster too.

The result was that the release team was pissed and made a big stink about how this was causing or going to cause all sorts of issues. We surmised that it was because it reduced their OT.

It's been over a year and none of the issues have ever occurred.

My biggest issue with LLM written code is that it's often submitted by non-programmers, and often fails the first test, which is "does this even work, and solve the issue?". A test that I normally wouldn't even do since no one on my team would submit code that doesn't compile, or doesn't fix the problem.

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#109

Post by kadhirvelm »

evilduck wrote: post #104
kadhirvelm wrote: post #13

Curious what other teams are doing to keep encouraging people to think critically about their code? I’ve been finding it harder to keep people motivated, keep them engaged with all the changes coming in. And I can’t blame them, it’s been overwhelming. Is everyone else just using more AI..?

I had a senior engineer last week just completely fail to implement an entire subsection of acceptance criteria on a story before creating a PR and got the answer/attempted excuse that the AI agent "missed it" and they didn't double check the work. This is something I haven't seen a senior engineer do in recent memory prior to AI entering the workplace, they at least read the requirements back then even if they misin…

[dead]

Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap

#110

Post by Terr_ »

csallen wrote: post #97
croemer wrote: post #21

Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.

> When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. I'm surprised people aren't taking the time to edit this very specific kind of phrasing out of their writing. It's such a common AI tell now that, even when writing by hand, I'd just avoid it entirely. Then again, I hated that LLMs co-opted the em-dash, and I refuse to stop using it, so I suppose I get it.

> to edit this very specific kind of phrasing out of their writing

Even without touching moral/ethical/normative reasons, it's impractical. LLMs will continue to incorporate the most popular phrasings or grammars, and touchy readers will simply pivot to a new "telltale" du-jour.

Eventually any personal or organic writing will be gone, as one twists themselves into an artificial form of "the inverse of the LLM."

> Michael Bolton: "No way, why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

Post reply on HN