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

Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

geoffreylitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 290 posts

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#121

Post by _kb »

Kichererbsen wrote: post #85
nextaccountic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if something is surprising just because it's a novel algorithm, it warrants better documentation - but commenting the code explaining how it works will make the code itself less surprising! In short, it's probably possible (and it's maybe a good engineering practice) to structure the source such as no specific part is really surprising It reminds me how LLMs finally made people to care about having good document…

I often find myself leaving review comments on pull requests where I was surprised. I'll state as much: This surprised me - I was expecting XYZ at this point. Or I wasn't expecting X to be in charge of Y.

WTFs/minute is a good metric for code quality. Now your pair expressing that can be an LLM.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/whos-your-coding-buddy/

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#123

Post by exe34 »

JimDabell wrote: post #113
motorest wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know about BDD frameworks. I’m talking higher level than that. What level do you think there is above "Given I'm logged in as a Regular User When I go to the front page Then I see the Profile button"?

The line you wrote does not describe a feature. Typically you have many of those cases and they collectively describe one feature. I’m talking about describing the feature. Do you seriously think there is no higher level than given/when/thens?

Could you give an example? It's not that I don't believe there are higher levels - I just don't want to guess what you might be hinting at.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#125

Post by smolder »

furyofantares wrote: post #68

I'm very curious if a toggle would be useful that would display a heatmap of a source file showing how surprising each token is to the model. Red tokens are more likely to be errors, bad names, or wrong comments.

Nope, not surprising. Parent changed their text but they are just as wrong.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#126

Post by newswasboring »

ijk wrote: post #79
furyofantares wrote: post #68

I'm very curious if a toggle would be useful that would display a heatmap of a source file showing how surprising each token is to the model. Red tokens are more likely to be errors, bad names, or wrong comments.

I want that in an editor. It's also a good way to check if your writing is too predictable or cliche. The perplexity calculation isn't difficult; just need to incorporate it into the editor interface.

Can you elaborate on how would one do this calculation?

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#129

Post by federiconafria »

Kichererbsen wrote: post #85
nextaccountic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if something is surprising just because it's a novel algorithm, it warrants better documentation - but commenting the code explaining how it works will make the code itself less surprising! In short, it's probably possible (and it's maybe a good engineering practice) to structure the source such as no specific part is really surprising It reminds me how LLMs finally made people to care about having good document…

I often find myself leaving review comments on pull requests where I was surprised. I'll state as much: This surprised me - I was expecting XYZ at this point. Or I wasn't expecting X to be in charge of Y.

I like to say that the reviewer is always right in that sense, if something is surprising, confusing, unexpected. Since I've been looking at the code for hours, I don't have a valid perspective anymore.
Post reply on HN