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

AI coding is gambling

notes.visaint.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 471 posts

Re: AI coding is gambling

#131

Post by seanmcdirmid »

nickjj wrote: post #117
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often have to put in a prompt like this 5-10 times before the code resembles something I'd even consider using as a 1st draft base to refactor into something I would consider worth of being git commit. Are you stuck entering your prompts in manually or do you have it setup like a feedback loop like "beautify -> check beauty -> in not beautiful enough beautify again"? I can't imagine why everyone things AIs can ju…

I do everything manually. Prompt, look at the code, see if it works (copy / paste) and if it works but it's written poorly I'll re-prompt to make the code more readable, often ending with me making it more readable without extra prompts. Btw, this isn't about code formatting or linting. It's about how the logic is written. > I can't imagine why everyone things AIs can just one shot everything like correctness, optimi…

Why do you orchestrate the AI manually? You could write a BUILD file that just does it in a loop a few times, or I guess if you lack build system interaction, write a python script?

> If it knows how to make the code more readable and / or better for performance by me simply asking "can you make this more readable and performant?" then it should be able to provide this result from the beginning.

This is the wrong way to think about AI (at least with our current tech). If you give AI a general task, it won't focus its attention at any of these aspects in particular. But, after you create the code, if you use separate readability and optimization feedback loops where you specifically ask it to work on those aspects of the code, it will do a much better job.

People who feel like AI should just do the right thing already without further prompting or attention focus are just going to be frustrated.

> Btw, this isn't about code formatting or linting. It's about how the logic is written.

Yes, but you still aren't focusing the AI's attention on the problem. You can also write a guide that it puts into context for things you notice that it consistently does wrong. But I would make it a separate pass, get the code to be correct first, and then go through readability refactors (while keeping the code still passing its tests).

Re: AI coding is gambling

#132

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

bwestergard wrote: post #78
thisisbrians wrote: post #41

It is and will always be about: 1) properly defining the spec 2) ensuring the implementation satisfies said spec

That can't be the whole story, right? Because there are an arbitrarily large number of (e.g.) Rust programs that will implement any given spec given in terms of unit tests, types, and perhaps some performance benchmarks. But even accounting for all these "hard" constraints and metrics, there are clearly reasons to prefer some possible programs over others even when they all satisfy the same constraints and perform eq…

> there are clearly reasons to prefer some possible programs over others even when they all satisfy the same constraints

Maintainability is a big one missing from the current LLM/agentic workflow.

When business needs change, you need to be able to add on to the existing program.

We create feedback loops via tests to ensure programs behave according to the spec, but little to nothing in the way of code quality or maintainability.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#134

Post by mkehrt »

pdntspa wrote: post #126
bluefirebrand wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane, because I literally haven't written a line of code myself in months This is exactly the sort of mentality that makes me hate this technology You finally feel good at programming despite admitting that you aren't actually doing it Please explain why anyone should take this seriously?

Because the programming is and was always a means to an end. Obsessing over the specific mechanical act of programming is taking the forest for the trees. I agree with gp that the speed in which I am able to execute my vision is exhilarating. It is making me love programming again. My side projects, which have been hanging on the wall for years , are actually getting done. And quickly! The actual act of keying in cod…

None of my side projects are things where I want the output. They're all things where I want to write the code myself so I understand it better. AI is antithetical to this.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#135

Post by bazmattaz »

m00x wrote: post #127
watzon wrote: post #110

I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…

AI coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses.

Dam this is so accurate. As a project manager turned product manager this is so true. You need to estimate a project based on the “pedigree” of your engineers

Re: AI coding is gambling

#136

Post by QuantumGood »

watzon wrote: post #110

I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…

Framing anything with a common blanket concept usually fails to apply the same framing to related areas. A lot of things include some gambling, you need to compare how it was also 'gambling' before, and how 'not using AI' is also 'gambling', etc.

As @m00x points out "coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses."

Re: AI coding is gambling

#137

Post by bluefirebrand »

simonw wrote: post #10

Assigning work to an intern is gambling: they're inherently non-deterministic and it's a roll of the dice whether the work they do will be good enough or you'll have to give them feedback in order to get to what you need.

Drawing parallels between AI and interns just shows you're a misanthrope

You should value assigning tasks to human interns more than AI because they are human

Re: AI coding is gambling

#138

Post by runarberg »

watzon wrote: post #110

I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…

I don‘t think so. A project manager can give feedback, train their staff, etc. An AI coding model is all you get, and you have to wait until your provider trains a new model before you might see an improvement.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#139

Post by SkyPuncher »

m00x wrote: post #127
watzon wrote: post #110

I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…

AI coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses.

Only if your AI coding approach is the slot machine approach.

I've ended up with a process that produces very, very high quality outputs. Often needing little to no correct from me.

I think of it like an Age of Empires map. If you go into battle surrounded by undiscovered parts of the map, you're in for a rude surprise. Winning a battle means having clarity on both the battle itself and risks next to the battle.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#140

Post by throw4847285 »

simonw wrote: post #10

Assigning work to an intern is gambling: they're inherently non-deterministic and it's a roll of the dice whether the work they do will be good enough or you'll have to give them feedback in order to get to what you need.

There are two major mistakes here.

The first is equating human and LLM intelligence. Note that I am not saying that humans are smarter than LLMs. But I do believe that LLMs represent an alien intelligence with a linguistic layer that obscures the differences. The thought processes are very different. At top AI firms, they have the equivalent of Asimov's Susan Calvin trying to understand how these programs think, because it does not resemble human cognition despite the similar outputs.

The second and more important is the feedback loop. What makes gambling gambling is you can smash that lever over and over again and immediately learn if you lost or got a jackpot. The slowness and imprecision of human communication creates a totally different dynamic.

To reiterate, I am not saying interns are superior to LLMs. I'm just saying they are fundamentally different.

And, if we're being honest, the way people talk about interns is weirdly dehumanizing, and the fact that they are always trotted out in these AI debates is depressing.

Post reply on HN