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

My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

matthewrocklin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 241 posts

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#131

Post by moron4hire »

headcanon wrote: post #41
emseetech wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why use AI to output javascript or python? Why not output everything in C and ASM for 500x performance? Why use high level languages meant to be easier for humans? Why not go right to the metal? If anyone's ever tried this, it's clear why: AI is terrible at C and ASM. But that cuts into what AI is at its core: It's not actual programming, it's mechanical reproduction. Which means its incapabilities in…

One thing I have been doing is breaking out of my long-held default mode of spinning up a react/nextjs project whenever I need frontend, and generating barebones HTML/CSS/JS for basic web apps. A lot of the reason we went with the former was the easy access to packages and easy-to-understand state management, but now that a lot of the functionality packages used to provide can be just as easily generated, I can get a…

I mean, you're basically LLM-washing other people's code, then. All those UI components that other people wrote and at least expected attribution may not be libraries anymore, sure. But you've basically just copied and maybe lightly modified that code into your project and then slapped a sticker on it saying "mine." If you did that manually with open source code, you'd be in violation of the attribution terms almost all the licenses have in common. But somehow it's okay if the computer does it for you?

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#132

Post by tverbeure »

emseetech wrote: post #15
CharlesW wrote: post #5

I get vibe-coders not having a good experience once the honeymoon is over. But I'm fascinated that a professional software developer could have such a different experience than I do. • LLMs generate junk • LLMs generate a lot of junk

My question is why use AI to output javascript or python? Why not output everything in C and ASM for 500x performance? Why use high level languages meant to be easier for humans? Why not go right to the metal? If anyone's ever tried this, it's clear why: AI is terrible at C and ASM. But that cuts into what AI is at its core: It's not actual programming, it's mechanical reproduction. Which means its incapabilities in…

The premise of your question is wrong. I would still write Python for most of my tasks even if I were just as fast at writing C or ASM.

Because the conciseness and readability of the code that I use is way more important than execution speed 99% of the time.

I assume that people who use AI tools still want to be able to make manual changes. There are hardly any all or nothing paradigms in the tech world, why do you assume that AI is different?

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#133

Post by zephen »

bossyTeacher wrote: post #98
tsukikage wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is more fun because you don’t have to “wrestle the computer” Indeed, of all the possible things to say! AI "development" /is/ wrestling the computer. It is the opposite of the old-fashioned kind of development where the computer does exactly what you told it to. To get an AI to actually do what I want and nothing else is an incredibly painful, repetitive, confrontational process.

>AI "development" /is/ wrestling the computer. No, it is not. What you are doing is something not too different from asking your [insert here freelance platform] hired remote dev to make an app and enter a cycle of testing the generated app and giving feedback, it is not wrestling the computer.

If I wanted to manage, I would have gone into management.

For people like me, anything that makes the computer more human-like is a step in the wrong direction, and feels much more like wrestling.

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#134

Post by zephen »

mrocklin wrote: post #124
deergomoo wrote: post #2

I will never as long as I live understand the argument that AI development is more fun. If you want to argue that you’re more capable or whatever, fine. I disagree but I don’t have any data to disprove you. But saying that AI development is more fun because you don’t have to “wrestle the computer” is, to me, the same as saying you’re really into painting but you’re not really into the brush aspect so you pay someone…

One can have fun with all manner of things. Take wood-working for example. One can have fun with a handsaw. One can also have fun with a table saw. They're both fun, just different kinds

What about a table saw with no guard, a wobbly blade, and directions from management to follow a faint line you'd have a hard time doing with a scroll saw?

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#135

Post by nurettin »

moron4hire wrote: post #131
headcanon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I have been doing is breaking out of my long-held default mode of spinning up a react/nextjs project whenever I need frontend, and generating barebones HTML/CSS/JS for basic web apps. A lot of the reason we went with the former was the easy access to packages and easy-to-understand state management, but now that a lot of the functionality packages used to provide can be just as easily generated, I can get a…

I mean, you're basically LLM-washing other people's code, then. All those UI components that other people wrote and at least expected attribution may not be libraries anymore, sure. But you've basically just copied and maybe lightly modified that code into your project and then slapped a sticker on it saying "mine." If you did that manually with open source code, you'd be in violation of the attribution terms almost…

It is a gray area. What if you took Qt, removed macros, replaced anchoring with css for alignment, took all widget properties out into an entity component system and called it ET, could Trolltech complain? It is an entirely new design and nothing like they built. A ship of Theseus if you will.

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#136

Post by yeasku »

llmslave2 wrote: post #38
switchbak wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our ability to zoom in and implement code is now obsolete Even with SOTA LLMs like Opus 4.5 this is downright untrue. Many, many logical, strategic, architectural, and low level code mistakes are still happening. And given context window limitations of LLMs (even with hacks like subagents to work around this) big picture long-term thinking about code design, structure, extensibility, etc. is very tricky to do right…

[dead]

[dead]

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#137

Post by beej71 »

mrocklin wrote: post #122
beej71 wrote: post #119

>>I get it, you’re too good to vibe code. You’re a senior developer who has been doing this for 20 years and knows the system like the back of your hand. >> [...] >>No, you’re not too good to vibe code. In fact, you’re the only person who should be vibe coding. All we have to do is produce more devs with 20 years of experience and we'll be set. :)

Original author of the post here. Just to give credit where it's due, that was a quote from this other excellent article written by someone else: https://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/a-guide-to-gen-ai-llm-vi...

I did double quote it, but you're right—I should have made it clear.

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#138

Post by moron4hire »

nurettin wrote: post #135
moron4hire wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you're basically LLM-washing other people's code, then. All those UI components that other people wrote and at least expected attribution may not be libraries anymore, sure. But you've basically just copied and maybe lightly modified that code into your project and then slapped a sticker on it saying "mine." If you did that manually with open source code, you'd be in violation of the attribution terms almost…

It is a gray area. What if you took Qt, removed macros, replaced anchoring with css for alignment, took all widget properties out into an entity component system and called it ET, could Trolltech complain? It is an entirely new design and nothing like they built. A ship of Theseus if you will.

The Ship of Theseus has nothing to do with the identity of the parts. That is not in question at all; they are explicitly different parts. The thought experiment is the question of the identity of the whole.

Qt in your example is a part. You're application is the whole. If you replaced Qt with WxWidgets, is your application still the same application?

But to answer your question, to replace Qt with you're own piecemeal code doesn't do anything more to Qt than replacing it with WxWidgets would: nothing. The Qt code is gone. The only way it would ship-of-theseus itself into "still being Qt, despite not being the original Qt" would be if Qt required all modifications to be copyright-assigned and upstreamed. That is absurd. I don't think I've ever seen a license that did anything like that.

Even though licenses like the GPL require reciprocal FOSS release in-kind, you still retain the rights to your code. If you were ever to remove the GPL'd library dependency, then you would no longer be required to reciprocate. Of course, that would be a new version of your software and the previous versions would still be available and still be FOSS. But neither are you required to continue to offer the original version to anyone new. You are only required to provide the source to people who have received your software. And technically, you only have to do it when they ask, but that's a different story.

Re: My article on why AI is great (or terrible) or how to use it

#139

Post by Verdex »

raincole wrote: post #108
Verdex wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent my 20 year career working largely in medical software. The only jobs I've been replacing are pancreas that stop functioning correctly. Maybe don't speak for all of us.

Computers themselves replaced computers (yeah, a job title). Your medical software certainly automatizes someone else's job, otherwise no one will pay you to write them. You just don't care about them. Or you do, but you believe it's worth it because your software helped more patients, or improved the overall efficiency and therefore created more demand and jobs - a belief many pro-AI people hold as well.

The job used to be the patients'. Manually managing type 1 diabetes isn't a fun job. Try reading Think like a pancreas for the fun details.

Patient outcomes are significantly better with modern technology.

> You just don't care about them.

Yeah, okay.

Post reply on HN