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

AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 164 posts

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#131

Post by ACCount37 »

ethanwillis wrote: post #125
ACCount37 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you reach into a "statistical model" and find that it has generalized abstracts like "deceptive behavior", or "code error"? Abstracts that you can intentionally activate or deactivate - making an AI act as if 3+5 would return a code error, or as if dividing by zero wouldn't? That's abstract thinking. Those are real examples of the kind of thing that can be found in modern production grade AIs. Not "anthropomorph…

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about at all. You've clearly read a lot of social media content about AI, but have you ever read any philosophy?

Almost all philosophy is incredibly worthless in general, and especially in application to AI tech.

Anything that actually works and is in any way useful is removed from philosophy and gets its own field. So philosophy is left as, largely, a collection of curios and failures.

Also, I would advise you to never discuss philosophy with an LLM. It might be a legitimate cognitohazard.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#132

Post by gerdesj »

LLMs are not ... well ...

I've just tried to get ChatGPT to help me generate a plumbing part that I will 3D print. Bit bizarre but the part in question (which is currently cracked) holds the other part in place and that provides the water seal with two O rings.

I got so far with OpenSCAD. I started off with describing a part that Chat came back with as a "cup". Fair enough and so far so magical. Then I asked it to put a helical screw thread on the inside of the part. It suggested a popular library for this (BOSL2) and then got things a bit wrong.

This is how it goes: Chat int al will get you close but as things get more specialized it will start to go off piste and tumble.

I own a couple of slide rules. If I read them incorrectly then I will get a calculation wrong. Chat n that are just very fancy slide rules and I still find them fabulous.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#133

Post by thunky »

MorehouseJ09 wrote: post #82

“If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name,” I think this is going to make the difference between junior and senior engineers even more drastic than it is today. It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools, and the people who invest the most in their too…

> It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools

I would argue that if you can't describe the problem in plain language then you don't have a very good chance of solving it with code or otherwise.

Personally I find that the act of describing the problem will often reveal a good solution...then it's just a matter of seeing if the LLM agrees with me or if it has a difference idea (for better or worse).

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#134

Post by sublinear »

MorehouseJ09 wrote: post #82

“If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name,” I think this is going to make the difference between junior and senior engineers even more drastic than it is today. It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools, and the people who invest the most in their too…

> some of the best engineers I know have insane setups with nvim or emacs. They invest in their tool chain, and are now bringing AI into.

I find this likely, but totally irrelevant to their success now and in the future. AI tools are as much of a trivial choice as any other text editor features. The resulting time spent and code quality are the same regardless of personal preferences.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#135

Post by grugagag »

kazinator wrote: post #22
manoDev wrote: post #10

I'm tired of the anthropomorphization marketing behind AI driving this kind of discussion. In a few years, all this talk will sound as dumb as stating "MS Word spell checker will replace writers" or "Photoshop will replace designers". We'll reap the productivity benefits from this new tool, create more work for ourselves, output will stabilize at a new level and salaries will stagnate again, as it always happens.

Generative AI is replacing writers, designers, actors, ... it is nothing like just a spell checker or Phtoshop. Everyday, I see ads on YouTube with smooth-talking, real-looking AI-generated actors. Each one represents one less person that would have been paid. There is no exact measure of correctness in design; one bad bit does not stop the show. The clients don't even want real art. Artists sometimes refer to commer…

> Generative AI is replacing writers, designers, actors, ... it is nothing like just a spell checker or Phtoshop.

For cheap stuff it’s true. However, nobody wants to watch or listen generated content and this will wear thin aside from the niche it’ll take hold of and permanently replace humans.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#136

Post by Verdex »

thunky wrote: post #133
MorehouseJ09 wrote: post #82

“If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name,” I think this is going to make the difference between junior and senior engineers even more drastic than it is today. It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools, and the people who invest the most in their too…

> It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools I would argue that if you can't describe the problem in plain language then you don't have a very good chance of solving it with code or otherwise. Personally I find that the act of describing the problem will often reveal a good solution...then it's just a matter of seeing if the LLM agrees with me or if it has a difference idea (for b…

> ...describe the problem in plain language...

Oh, I get it. They're saying you should be able to write it in C.

[Jokes aside, I would be interested in hearing from bridge builders, aerospace engineers, or nuclear scientists. Pretty sure they're using math and not 'plain language'.]

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#137

Post by pharrington »

the__alchemist wrote: post #123
pharrington wrote: post #121

My #1 issue with AI for programming is that while I do trust it to produce OK boilerplate code, I can also just download that boilerplate code, if I haven't already written it myself. Free software is the answer.

This is profound, and I think you have dove to the core of why LLMs are taking off for code. They fix a problem: the mutual incompatibility between software. "Free software" is not the answer, as it's used today: for example, the canonical Free Software OS, Linux, is fragmented into many mutually incompatible ABIs. We need to tear down barriers between software. Barriers between languages, frameworks and OS ABIs. I d…

Yeah I think you're spot on with the compatibility issues. Obviously YMMV depending on the languages and libraries in question, but yeah there's no one size fits all solution, and writing boilerplate code is the most boring thing in software development.

That's the big thing that's warmed up to programming languages with good macro systems in the past few years (and I absolutely LOVE Zig's comptime paradigm). At the same time, I've got serious questions about the programmers who dismiss macros as overkill for their needs, but then immediately pull out the LLM.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#138

Post by tjr »

pharrington wrote: post #137
the__alchemist wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is profound, and I think you have dove to the core of why LLMs are taking off for code. They fix a problem: the mutual incompatibility between software. "Free software" is not the answer, as it's used today: for example, the canonical Free Software OS, Linux, is fragmented into many mutually incompatible ABIs. We need to tear down barriers between software. Barriers between languages, frameworks and OS ABIs. I d…

Yeah I think you're spot on with the compatibility issues. Obviously YMMV depending on the languages and libraries in question, but yeah there's no one size fits all solution, and writing boilerplate code is the most boring thing in software development. That's the big thing that's warmed up to programming languages with good macro systems in the past few years (and I absolutely LOVE Zig's comptime paradigm). At the…

Macros are harder to learn.

But I've wondered the same thing. On some level, the coding superpowers allegedly wrought by LLMs seem reminiscent of proficient use of macros. But most programmers don't use them, and most programming languages don't support them.

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#139

Post by anthem2025 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #131
ethanwillis wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about at all. You've clearly read a lot of social media content about AI, but have you ever read any philosophy?

Almost all philosophy is incredibly worthless in general, and especially in application to AI tech. Anything that actually works and is in any way useful is removed from philosophy and gets its own field. So philosophy is left as, largely, a collection of curios and failures. Also, I would advise you to never discuss philosophy with an LLM. It might be a legitimate cognitohazard.

How exactly do you presume to make an argument about thought and whether or an LLM exhibits genuine thought and intelligence without philosophy?

Not to mention the effect of formal logic in computer science

Re: AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

#140

Post by bluefirebrand »

kazinator wrote: post #76
kstenerud wrote: post #72

“If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name” If it's taking you that long to direct the AI, then either you're throwing too small a problem at it, or too big a problem at it, or you're not directing its attention properly. In a way, your prompts should feel like writing user documentation:…

I feel you've done a decent job of disguising "you're not approaching it with the right mindset".

My read was along the lines of "you're holding it wrong"
Post reply on HN