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

Punch yourself in the face with reality

adi.bio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 139 posts

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#121

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

theshrike79 wrote: post #117
throwawayffffas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I have found that AI in general has a procrastination nullifying effect. Before dealing with anything that might put me off. I can just ask the agent to do it for me. And then, do something else, take that break, but regardless in a few minutes I will have something to jump on instead of the same blank terminal with the same blinking cursor judging me. It really makes taking the first step, much easier and then…

It's the empty page problem. For some people (most?) it's really hardhard, almost impossible, to fill the page with text, but when you have a page of text - even if it's shit - suddenly it's easy to critique it and interate to make it better. AI lets me poop out an MVP out of any idea or spec with very little effort on my part, then I can go in and start improving it.

> MVP

I guess a lot of folks are having better luck than I am, in getting ship-quality results from LLMs.

In my case, I find that the first iteration is almost never suitable for shipping. In fact, the more intricate the functionality, the more likely it is, to contain some real showstopper bugs.

In my experience, iteration really requires that I know my shit. I have to know what to look for, and how to form effective prompts. Testing is absolutely vital. I can’t ever “just assume” that the code is fundamentally sound; even for extremely basic stuff.

That lack of trust in my output is something I haven’t had, in decades. It can be a bit stressful.

For example, I write a lot of mobile software, so resource usage is a big deal. I had gotten used to not testing for battery usage, leaks, or out-of-control allocations, over the years of using Swift. I am now back to routinely running Instruments.

In a couple of instances, I was just unable to get anything useful from the LLM, had to toss all its output, and rewrite by hand.

That’s why I can’t even imagine directly shipping anything the LLM gives me.

That said, I have generally had extremely positive experiences with LLMs. It’s now a basic component of my workflow.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#122

Post by cyber_kinetist »

pixl97 wrote: post #78
inigyou wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of grids, USA power companies are saying they'll have to start blacking out millions of homes within a year, to have enough power for AI DCs.

Hopefully we're still at the point that millions of pissed off voters are more important than the relatively small number of DCs.

If both parties are actively willing to do it anyway, then why do votes even matter?

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#123

Post by theshrike79 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #121
theshrike79 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the empty page problem. For some people (most?) it's really hardhard, almost impossible, to fill the page with text, but when you have a page of text - even if it's shit - suddenly it's easy to critique it and interate to make it better. AI lets me poop out an MVP out of any idea or spec with very little effort on my part, then I can go in and start improving it.

> MVP I guess a lot of folks are having better luck than I am, in getting ship-quality results from LLMs. In my case, I find that the first iteration is almost never suitable for shipping. In fact, the more intricate the functionality, the more likely it is, to contain some real showstopper bugs. In my experience, iteration really requires that I know my shit. I have to know what to look for, and how to form effectiv…

If you never ship, how can you iterate?

Do you spend weeks running benchmarks and optimising your code without asking/observing a single actual user whether they care if that bit is fast or not?

Or would it be more efficient to ship something, gather data and iterate where relevant?

Because if you're not doing that, I can guarantee other people are. Sadly being the first and moving fast (adding features as users request them) is in many cases better in the mobile market than having the snappiest app with zero memory leaks and excellent battery efficiency.

The whole Turkish mobile gaming industry works on this principle, they ship like crazy and iterate quickly to see what sticks.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#124

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

theshrike79 wrote: post #123
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MVP I guess a lot of folks are having better luck than I am, in getting ship-quality results from LLMs. In my case, I find that the first iteration is almost never suitable for shipping. In fact, the more intricate the functionality, the more likely it is, to contain some real showstopper bugs. In my experience, iteration really requires that I know my shit. I have to know what to look for, and how to form effectiv…

If you never ship, how can you iterate? Do you spend weeks running benchmarks and optimising your code without asking/observing a single actual user whether they care if that bit is fast or not? Or would it be more efficient to ship something, gather data and iterate where relevant? Because if you're not doing that, I can guarantee other people are. Sadly being the first and moving fast (adding features as users requ…

It depends on the target market.

The mistake many people make, is casting what’s good for the goose, onto the gander.

I Serve a demographic that can suffer great harm, from half-baked crap. Also, there’s no money to be made, so what’s the hurry? If someone else comes up with something better, that’s actually a good thing.

I have been shipping software for my entire career. It’s quite possible to ship good stuff.

It’s just more work, and less financially rewarding, so fewer people do it. It just gets my goat, to hear people say that it’s not possible.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#125

Post by scotty79 »

a_c wrote: post #30

I spent multiple 5-hour sessions spec-ing my climbing app with AI, clarifying interactions, algorithm, workflow etc. It ended up a frankenstein that I didn't recognise or know how each part interact with each other. Command line were a mess, different commands doing the same thing, with similar but redundant arguments. Everything looks kind of doing what I intended but overly convoluted and nothing really works. Real…

The only two instances where I didn't manage to achieve satisfactory outcome with AI were when I overspecced ahead of time. The things I left out of the spec were implemented in the most undesired manner possible.

The best mode of work for me was gradually sculpting the prototype into a product by providing feedback and moving to version 2 (from scratch but often with v1 accessible as inspiration) if I felt like it's becoming overbloated.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#126

Post by feoren »

theshrike79 wrote: post #123
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MVP I guess a lot of folks are having better luck than I am, in getting ship-quality results from LLMs. In my case, I find that the first iteration is almost never suitable for shipping. In fact, the more intricate the functionality, the more likely it is, to contain some real showstopper bugs. In my experience, iteration really requires that I know my shit. I have to know what to look for, and how to form effectiv…

If you never ship, how can you iterate? Do you spend weeks running benchmarks and optimising your code without asking/observing a single actual user whether they care if that bit is fast or not? Or would it be more efficient to ship something, gather data and iterate where relevant? Because if you're not doing that, I can guarantee other people are. Sadly being the first and moving fast (adding features as users requ…

> If you never ship, how can you iterate?

Our discipline has swung way too far in this direction. The useful insight of "watch your users use your product -- you will always be surprised about something" has turned into "you cannot possibly have any vision or produce a useful product without constantly probing your users".

A/B testing, design by committee -- it reeks of cowardice and produces garbage. It reminds me of an SNL skit where politicians in a debate were able to see real-time social media responses to their talking points, and they immediately started playing a sort of "hotter/colder" game, changing their politics to try to get the graph to go up.

I promise you it's possible to just have an actual vision yourself. Yes, talking to users will surprise you, and it's important. But the idea that you cannot possibly iterate without shipping code is way, way too extreme.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#127

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

feoren wrote: post #126
theshrike79 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you never ship, how can you iterate? Do you spend weeks running benchmarks and optimising your code without asking/observing a single actual user whether they care if that bit is fast or not? Or would it be more efficient to ship something, gather data and iterate where relevant? Because if you're not doing that, I can guarantee other people are. Sadly being the first and moving fast (adding features as users requ…

> If you never ship, how can you iterate? Our discipline has swung way too far in this direction. The useful insight of "watch your users use your product -- you will always be surprised about something" has turned into "you cannot possibly have any vision or produce a useful product without constantly probing your users". A/B testing, design by committee -- it reeks of cowardice and produces garbage. It reminds me o…

It’s an old concept, called “taking risks.” Corporations and executives have been doing it for centuries. In fact, that's the excuse that executives give, for their monstrous salaries.

I think we have a culture, where people genuinely believe that we have some “right” to a risk-free fortune.

Training users to pay for unripe garbage, is probably one of modern Marketing’s biggest coups. It affords the “MVP model,” that everyone uses.

The other big coup, is “The Company is the Product, the User is the Resource, and the Investor is the Customer” model.

Steve Jobs famously, made many errors, in his career. Probably most of his ideas were duds, but the ones that scored, scored big.

He was also, famously, a world-class prick; but he wasn’t a misanthropic prick. He actually liked people (certain ones, more than others, I guess), and had a way of understanding them. That figured prominently, in his product ideas. Many folks are misanthropes, and refuse to understand people, so they have difficulty coming up with ideas that people might like.

Taking risks, and "putting our money where our mouth is," is the “old-fashioned” way of doing it.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#128

Post by feoren »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #127
feoren wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you never ship, how can you iterate? Our discipline has swung way too far in this direction. The useful insight of "watch your users use your product -- you will always be surprised about something" has turned into "you cannot possibly have any vision or produce a useful product without constantly probing your users". A/B testing, design by committee -- it reeks of cowardice and produces garbage. It reminds me o…

It’s an old concept, called “taking risks.” Corporations and executives have been doing it for centuries. In fact, that's the excuse that executives give, for their monstrous salaries. I think we have a culture, where people genuinely believe that we have some “right” to a risk-free fortune. Training users to pay for unripe garbage, is probably one of modern Marketing’s biggest coups. It affords the “MVP model,” that…

As much as I hate the veneration of Steve Jobs, this is one thing he was good at. Does anyone seriously think the iPod and iPhone would have ended up the way they were if he was putting half-assed music players with bare wires in the hands of users and going "do you like it? Is it OK? Would you buy this? What do you think? Is it too much? It's too much, isn't it? Should it be white? Is white OK? Do you like white? I noticed you didn't push the button. Do you like buttons?". Hell no. He took the prototype and said "Too clunky. Too big. I need to be able to lick it. It needs to feel better in my hand. Try again"

Yet not only do software developers do the timid design-by-focus-group all the time, they confidently tell you you're doing it wrong if you don't do it this way.

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#129

Post by [deleted] »

feoren wrote: post #128
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an old concept, called “taking risks.” Corporations and executives have been doing it for centuries. In fact, that's the excuse that executives give, for their monstrous salaries. I think we have a culture, where people genuinely believe that we have some “right” to a risk-free fortune. Training users to pay for unripe garbage, is probably one of modern Marketing’s biggest coups. It affords the “MVP model,” that…

As much as I hate the veneration of Steve Jobs, this is one thing he was good at. Does anyone seriously think the iPod and iPhone would have ended up the way they were if he was putting half-assed music players with bare wires in the hands of users and going "do you like it? Is it OK? Would you buy this? What do you think? Is it too much? It's too much, isn't it? Should it be white? Is white OK? Do you like white? I…

[deleted]

Re: Punch yourself in the face with reality

#130

Post by pinklimetea »

> You convince yourself that you are doing something useful when you are not.

I mean, this is true of literally every thought I have.

How many pointless imaginary arguments have you won? Maybe it had some benefit, but it was probably mostly unproductive thought. Time spent, calories burned, that would have been better spent elsewhere.

How many random side experiments or "Guess I'll just try" moments ended up defining your career, or life? People meet their spouses this way, and land their first real job.

It's all just flowing out of darkness... Nobody knows where it comes from. Nobody knows where it goes. Nobody knows what works. Nobody knows what fails.

But I'm not so naive to brush off tangibilities that unfold before my very eyes.

That's where some of us draw the line. You have to know the difference between reality and "unreality", or myth. That goes both ways

Post reply on HN