Live data from Hacker News

Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

stevekrouse.com

111–120 of 486 posts

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But of course writing code directly will always maintain the benefit of specificity. If you want to write instructions to a computer that are completely unambiguous, code will always be more useful than English. Unless the defect rate for humans is greater than LLMs at some point. A lot of claims are being made about hallucinations that seem to ignore that all software is extremely buggy. I can't use my phone witho…

Yeah, I don't really accept the argument that AI makes mistakes and therefore cannot be trusted to write production code (in general, at least - obviously depends on the types of mistakes, which code, etc.). The reality is we have built complex organizational structures around the fact that humans also make mistakes, and there's no real reason you can't use the same structures for AI. You have someone write the code,…

Humans also make mistakes, but unlike LLMs, they are capable of learning from their mistake and will not repeat it once they have learned. That, not the capacity to make mistakes, is why you should not allow LLMs to do things.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#112

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

> Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. Well, of course. Despite people applying the label of AI to them, LLMs don't have a shred of intelligence. That is inherent to how they work. They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on.

> don't have a shred of intelligence. ... They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on.

Couldn't you say that about 99% of humans too?

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#113

A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great Knuth didn't know how to find this existing truth - but there is a reason we all doubted it (including me when I mentioned it there) i have never written a c compiler yet I would bet money if you paid me to write one (it would take a few years at least) it wo…

You could probably do it in a few days, C is not that hard to compile

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. Well, of course. Despite people applying the label of AI to them, LLMs don't have a shred of intelligence. That is inherent to how they work. They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on.

> don't have a shred of intelligence. ... They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on. Couldn't you say that about 99% of humans too?

Yes... maybe not 99%...

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#115

A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great Knuth didn't know how to find this existing truth - but there is a reason we all doubted it (including me when I mentioned it there) i have never written a c compiler yet I would bet money if you paid me to write one (it would take a few years at least) it wo…

You could probably do it in a few days, C is not that hard to compile

Right, and that was a design goal of C language... to be close to the machine.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#116
post #83

Yet again we can pull out Edsger W.Dijkstra's 1978 article, "On the foolishness of "natural language programming"" "In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native tongues. this would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated, but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the burden, life would…

Djikstra wasn’t a god. He’s going to be wrong on this one.

He's not wrong. People are just drinking the AI kool-aid too hard to realize that the emperor has no clothes.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. Well, of course. Despite people applying the label of AI to them, LLMs don't have a shred of intelligence. That is inherent to how they work. They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on.

> don't have a shred of intelligence. ... They don't understand, only synthesize from the data they were trained on. Couldn't you say that about 99% of humans too?

The LLM was trained on 100% of humans, the 99% you’re scoffing at is feeding the LLM answers.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#118

A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great Knuth didn't know how to find this existing truth - but there is a reason we all doubted it (including me when I mentioned it there) i have never written a c compiler yet I would bet money if you paid me to write one (it would take a few years at least) it wo…

> as the space is already well covered The US patent commissioner in 1899 wanted to shutdown the patent office because "everything that can be invented has been invented." And yet, human ingenuity keeps proving otherwise.

There are lots of small innovations left. Only a few patents have ever been for revolutions. Small innovaions add up to big things.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#119

A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great Knuth didn't know how to find this existing truth - but there is a reason we all doubted it (including me when I mentioned it there) i have never written a c compiler yet I would bet money if you paid me to write one (it would take a few years at least) it wo…

> as the space is already well covered The US patent commissioner in 1899 wanted to shutdown the patent office because "everything that can be invented has been invented." And yet, human ingenuity keeps proving otherwise.

This is apocraphyl :(
Post reply on HN