101–110 of 312 posts
It is strange to read as the topic A has often not been introduced and introducing it by saying what it is not makes very little sense to a new reader.
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
> A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. This is true for coding, too, which I think, to a large degree, might explain the polarized differences in opinions on HN about the quality of LLM-produced code. You have the 1. "AI produces code better than I could possibly write, one shots things it would take me days to do, and has made me 10X more productive!" camp, and you have…
The language that I picked for the game runtime is Python. Claude really thought that the best way to validate user submitted Python was to bypass the WASM sandbox and execute it within the application container using shell exec - essentially opening up an RCE vulnerability.
I also find that the quality of Claude Code degrades substantially. Claude really wants to implement every feature in as bespoke way as possible. This is fine when you first generate the project but over time you'll find that every web modal is implemented differently. Every button is different. Business logic is disconnected. It's why agentically produced codebases are MUCH larger than they should be; every feature is developed in a vacuum.
Then I'm trying to shove stuff in my AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md files like "ALWAYS look for existing patterns within the codebase to keep it consistent." But the harness doesn't always work and it'll generate useless, verbose code anyways.
In some cases it's useful - like if I am shaky on the DSA knowledge needed for a specific operation or optimization then Claude can replace Stackoverflow. But, man, I'm so frustrated with it.
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
> A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. This is true for coding, too, which I think, to a large degree, might explain the polarized differences in opinions on HN about the quality of LLM-produced code. You have the 1. "AI produces code better than I could possibly write, one shots things it would take me days to do, and has made me 10X more productive!" camp, and you have…
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
> A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. This is true for coding, too, which I think, to a large degree, might explain the polarized differences in opinions on HN about the quality of LLM-produced code. You have the 1. "AI produces code better than I could possibly write, one shots things it would take me days to do, and has made me 10X more productive!" camp, and you have…
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
> A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. This is true for coding, too, which I think, to a large degree, might explain the polarized differences in opinions on HN about the quality of LLM-produced code. You have the 1. "AI produces code better than I could possibly write, one shots things it would take me days to do, and has made me 10X more productive!" camp, and you have…
1) he is extraordinarily lucky
2) he is extraordinary brilliant at manipulating LLMs
3) you really are "holding it wrong" and you are hobbling yourself with your failure to properly learn the tools
The first two seem rather unlikely.
I wrote a skill for this! But I’m sure a lot of you have as well lol. For those curious https://github.com/ryanthedev/oberskills/blob/main/commands/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The key difference is that code is not the end product I think this is open to debate. To me, the code has always been the goal, and the fact that writing it sometimes serves to produce a product is important to others (and what brings the paychecks in), but ultimately not something I've ever been excited about or interested in throughout my career. So I judge a developer based on the beauty and quality of the code…
Imo, this is like saying "I judge a carpenter based on how straight they can cut a piece of plywood." Or like saying "I judge an artist on how accurately they can draw a circle by hand." I mean that's certainly one way of looking at it, and both can be impressive technical feats. But most people judge carpenters and artists on their end products, their overall vision, their motifs, their philosophy, and so on. On the…
> artists on their end products, their overall vision, their motifs, their philosophy, and so on
The main output of programmer's work is their understanding of the system they work with, the rest comes from that. Behind the code there's its author's intention, vision, their tastes, philosophy and experience that makes them tackle problems in specific ways. Code review is, aside of quality assurance, mostly about communication between people, convincing them to your ways of doing things (or getting convinced by others) and communicating needs. It's what keeps projects running and what makes people improve their skills.
You don't need to see magnificence in code to realize that there's more to it than just the syntax tree to compile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dabble in drawing and I find LLM images (and maybe some non LLM one) abhorrent. As for why, the reason I can think of are: no consistency (perspective, small details, and color theory) and too much details making it a visual noise. In most painting, the artist will have a subject that is most detailed (to draw the eyes) and from there, the lost of details will follow some kind of logic. This is how you pinpoint wha…
It's like a gross looking slice of pizza, it's mindbending because at first it looks good, after all it's pizza, but something in it makes it really disgusting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The LLM sameness in web design is good. Most sites shouldn't try to be idiosyncratic. The best design for a site with real utility is legibility, and LLMs are better at that than the median developer. Always laying out the same buttons? Always using the same type scales? Good! If it looks good to you, you weren't going to do better on your own, and you were very likely to do worse. See, I disagree. Having seen plen…
I'm going to play devil's advocate, who cares if it all looks generally the same? I grew up before everyone had dial-up, and I remember back then, when Web surfing on Netscape Navigator, all the websites also had a similar structure. Homogeneity in this context, to me, signals a design system that works best in the moment.
Maybe here lies the crux; for some of us, the web and by extension the internet is about expression and individuality in a way, but all together all accessible by everyone. Everything looking the same instead looks conformist, and ultimately boring, which I guess is what many of us don't want day after day. We want new ideas, presented by the person/group who came up with it, in the way they would express it. The LLM kind of trashes the parts that add up to something interesting.
> The LLM generated writing obviously felt significantly better than my own writing. A general pattern for LLMs is that they look really good at things you are bad at. What that means is that if you find yourself thinking of its output as significantly better than yours in a particular domain, there's a high chance that you are not equipped to judge that quality effectively.
Let's say you are correct.
You ask an LLM to write something for you, and to you it looks really, really good. So based on your conjecture, that means I am not a very good writer.
Ok, but how does that change what I should do? If I am not a very good writer, that means an LLM IS actually better than me, even if it might not be objectively good to an expert writer.
My two choices are to keep producing my own crappy writing, or use an LLM to create better (but not great) writing.
Wouldn't it make sense to use an LLM?
It seems to me your premise leads you to the same conclusion you would reach even if your premise was false; if me thinking an LLM is good at a task means I am very bad at that task, I am probably better off having an LLM do it. On the other hand, if you are wrong, and I think an LLM is good at something because it actually IS good at that thing, then I should also use the LLM to do the task.
Either way, the LLM is better than me at the thing.