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

Don't you mean extinct?

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#101

Post by asdff »

fragmede wrote: post #96
asdff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why pay for hardware for local model when you have a working local brain?

Because I'm using my local working brain to work on other things. If I'm thinking about my family or making dinner I'm not thinking about the code I need to write. Or the email that needs to get sent, or setting up an eye doctors appointment. I'd pay for something to deal with that.

Do you frequently think of the code you are needing to write when you are thinking about your family or making dinner?

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#102

Post by themgt »

skydhash wrote: post #100
fragmede wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but it lets you iterate faster. Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect. Except by then, it's too late to change, so you march on. Writing code faster lets you find the things you didn't think of faster so then you get to design it again but better this time.

> Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect The mistake here is trying to come up with the most elegant design. You solve for what’s needed with the knowledge that you’ve most likely not captured the full situation, and make allowance for future changes. I don’t want faster code. What I want is flexibility in evol…

> I’ve never been in a situation that says “We’ve not think of that, we need to get back to the drawing board”

And you're somehow able to post on HN from within the time crystal?

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#103

Post by TacticalCoder »

stickfigure wrote: post #25
singpolyma3 wrote: post #2

I mostly like this article but > Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much Seems like a silly and needlessly aggressive take. Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? I've never been evaluated on volume in my life. Nor have co workers who were severely "behind" ever feared for their jobs.

> Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? Customer meaningful features that move the needle on the business. I think this is strictly true. And not because LLMs can write code faster. I think it's true even if you're still writing most of your code by hand and using the LLM as an assistant. My anecdotal but decades-long observation is that most of the time=cost of a project comes not from writing code, but…

> Weird bugs, surprising behaviors, spec ambiguities, library defects, mysterious test failures, etc. Stuff that requires intense debugging and building out a mental map of code that might not even be yours. LLMs excel at this kind of thing

I've noticed that too. And I think it's no surprise we see lots of "728 security exploits found by LLMs in project X" posts.

They excel at what you mention.

I also think that, as of 2026, they suck fat balls at writing code.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#104

Post by fragmede »

BrenBarn wrote: post #91
konart wrote: post #72

>In 1993, Jurassic Park came out and revolutionized the use of CGI in films I thought Terminator 2 did this. At least around where I lived everyone talked about T2 and questioned how they did this or that. JP? Not really.

Both were pretty influential. Roughly speaking I think a lot of people saw T2 and thought "wow, that looks really cool in a high-tech way" and a lot of people saw Jurassic Park and thought "wow, that looks really realistic". The silvery liquid terminator morphing into stuff was cool, but the natural-looking dinosaurs were cool in a complementary way.

So much of the Terminator stuff was live action and not CGI though, that I don't think that Terminator is the thing to look at for CGI. The floating head was CGI, but all those squibs were not.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#105

Post by evilduck »

asdff wrote: post #85
evilduck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can accomplish quite a lot with smaller local models on reasonably priced pro tier hardware (not cheap hardware, but very attainable hardware for anyone making average software engineer money). Qwen 3.6 27B and 35BA3, Gemma 28B, and so on are incredibly beneficial even if Anthropic and OpenAI produce better options. Failing that, GLM 5.2 is open weights, trades blows with current frontier models and widely availa…

Why pay for hardware for local model when you have a working local brain?

Why pay for a car to drive when you have working legs? To go further, faster.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#106

Post by ErroneousBosh »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #2

I mostly like this article but > Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much Seems like a silly and needlessly aggressive take. Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? I've never been evaluated on volume in my life. Nor have co workers who were severely "behind" ever feared for their jobs.

I don't understand why LLMs are supposed to be able to do things more quickly anyway.

I've tried a couple of times to use Claude to help write stuff, and it sits there for a couple of minutes "thinking" before returning some grossly incorrect code.

What's the bit that's supposed to be faster?

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#107

Post by skydhash »

themgt wrote: post #102
skydhash wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect The mistake here is trying to come up with the most elegant design. You solve for what’s needed with the knowledge that you’ve most likely not captured the full situation, and make allowance for future changes. I don’t want faster code. What I want is flexibility in evol…

> I’ve never been in a situation that says “We’ve not think of that, we need to get back to the drawing board” And you're somehow able to post on HN from within the time crystal?

Lol, I just don’t rush into coding when I could talk with the customer/user (or Product). And I shape my codebase into something I can easily experiment upon. Which means I try for it to be modular with suitable abstraction that I can easily tweak.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#108

Post by williamcotton »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #98
fragmede wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but it lets you iterate faster. Who hasn't come up wit the most perfect elegant design, only to come up against three reality of implement and an "oh we forgot about that" aspect. Except by then, it's too late to change, so you march on. Writing code faster lets you find the things you didn't think of faster so then you get to design it again but better this time.

That sort of trial and error design seems like a really unprofessional way of working.

Why? Trial and error is a pretty important component of creativity.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#109

Post by asdff »

evilduck wrote: post #105
asdff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why pay for hardware for local model when you have a working local brain?

Why pay for a car to drive when you have working legs? To go further, faster.

Was velocity of writing the code ever the limiting factor in this business? If it was/is, why pay for westerners to prompt agents when you can pay for 10 fold more southeast asians to prompt agents?

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#110

Post by fuckaiwriter »

bitwize wrote: post #27
singpolyma3 wrote: post #2

I mostly like this article but > Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much Seems like a silly and needlessly aggressive take. Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? I've never been evaluated on volume in my life. Nor have co workers who were severely "behind" ever feared for their jobs.

No, he is correct. LLMs have much larger working memories for the kind of details you work with in programming tasks. You are at an objective cognitive deficit by not taking advantage of this. Everybody knows what he means by left behind. When you program, you do so with a goal in mind, and you will not be able to reach that goal as quickly without LLMs. You will be outcompeted by those who use them, and this means t…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN