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

Let's talk about LLMs

b-list.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#131

Post by nothinkjustai »

aspenmartin wrote: post #99
gerdesj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"paradigm shift" A paradigm shift is an earth shattering, very important change - a complete change in thinking etc. LLMs are not that. They are simply some pretty new tools. Nice tools but they will whip off your metaphorical thumb just as quickly as a miss-used table saw. You'll note that you mention "engineers are offloading": that's not a paradigm shift. That's a bunch of engineers discovering a better slide rule…

I would argue LLMs are possibly the largest paradigm shift the world has ever seen, and we are only at the beginning. The entire scaffolding and structure of programming is in the process of changing — coding has moved to orchestration and testing and governance of how to manage and productionalize code that has surpassed the capacity of human review. If this sounds melodramatic it’s likely that it hasn’t fully taken…

No offense but this reads like AI psychosis

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#132

Post by nothinkjustai »

handoflixue wrote: post #112
paganel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very clear and extremely rapid improvement in a startlingly short amount of time. We're almost 6 months into all this AI-code madness and I've yet to see that "rapid improvement" you mention. As in software products that are genuinely better compared to 6 months ago, or new software products (and good software products at that) which would have not existed had this AI craze not happened.

Can you name literally any other technology that had hundreds of millions of users within the first six months of being invented? Six months after the internet was invented, you could send email between a few universities. Six months after the computer was invented, they still hadn't actually built one. The first transcontinental railroad, took about six YEARS just to build.

GPT did not have hundreds of millions of users when it was invented almost a decade ago…

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#133

Post by marcus_holmes »

zouhair wrote: post #109
marcus_holmes wrote: post #94

I was waiting for the "so I tried coding something with an LLM myself, and I found..." paragraph. But apparently the author never did try it, or at least if they did, they didn't write about it. This is a very academic approach to the subject - read what other people have written about it without ever doing it yourself. Study what someone said about LLM coding 50 years ago, before they were even invented, to see what…

The problem I have with it is the price (I am not talking about the money). I don't know if the price is worth it. For example we are literally witnessing the death of the personal computers, it will soon become a rich people's hobby. I don't know how the whole Free Software/Open source will survive that. At best we will end up not owning nothing, not even the programming skills as everyone will be at the mercy of AI…

I'm not sure what LLMs have to do with the death of personal computers? Can you explain, please?

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#134

Post by slopinthebag »

gerdesj wrote: post #91
mfro wrote: post #4

I think you're misunderstanding the paradigm shift completely -- AI does not just generate code N(x) more quickly. It thinks N(x) faster, it researches N(x) faster, it tests N(x) faster. There are hundreds of tasks that you'll find engineers are offloading to AI every day. The major hurdle right now is actually pivoting LLMs from just generating code: integrating those tasks into workflows. This is why tool-use and a…

"paradigm shift" A paradigm shift is an earth shattering, very important change - a complete change in thinking etc. LLMs are not that. They are simply some pretty new tools. Nice tools but they will whip off your metaphorical thumb just as quickly as a miss-used table saw. You'll note that you mention "engineers are offloading": that's not a paradigm shift. That's a bunch of engineers discovering a better slide rule…

"paradigm shift"

And it's literally just a black box that generates more Javascript for their Next.js app

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#135

Post by zapataband1 »

jatora wrote: post #121
zapataband1 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many years of real-life, in-production problem solving/coding have you done? That's what I base how informed you are not how much you use your favorite new $100/month token-prediction subscription

15 years. But that's irrelevant to this point. The person im replying to clearly doesnt use the tools if they think there hasnt been constant improvement. "token-prediction subscription" is funny, coming from a glorified biological token predictor

ah yes another feeble fool that thinks his 100$ subscription is equivalent to 400 billion years of evolution simply because he is stupid and watches a lot of scifi.

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#136

Post by Izkata »

guille_ wrote: post #82
cfloyd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use one model for coding and another writing tests for that very reason. It’s surprisingly good at TDD

I find this fascinating because it's the sort of anthropomorphism that betrays a fundamental understanding of what an LLM is. Language models are not people. You can just achieve the same thing with a fresh context window. The only solid technical reason you'd want a different model is if you find a certain model produces better code and another produces better reviews. Nobody has really tested this, of course.

I believe the theory isn't that one is better than the other, but that different models would make different mistakes, so you can be more confident in the places where the code and tests agree.

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#138

Post by xixixao »

radarsat1 wrote: post #44
michaelchisari wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, AI should not do the design itself. You develop the design in conversation with AI. I come in knowing what I need to build and at least one idea or more of how it should be done. I present the problem, constraints, potential solutions, and ask for criticisms and alternatives. I can keep it as broad as possible or I can get more granular like struct layouts, api endpoints, etc. I go back and forth until th…

> It's wildly better at tight and limited scope than large scale changes but even then I would rather code it myself. One thing I would like to see is the use of LLMs for smarter semi-manual editing. While programming I often need to make very similar changes in several places. If the instances are similar enough I can get away with recording a one-off keyboard macro to repeat, but if there are differences that are t…

Wait, have you been using Cursor? This is exaclty what it does fairly well.

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#139

Post by jatora »

zapataband1 wrote: post #135
jatora wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15 years. But that's irrelevant to this point. The person im replying to clearly doesnt use the tools if they think there hasnt been constant improvement. "token-prediction subscription" is funny, coming from a glorified biological token predictor

ah yes another feeble fool that thinks his 100$ subscription is equivalent to 400 billion years of evolution simply because he is stupid and watches a lot of scifi.

Nope not at all, but it's most certainly superior to the tokens your neural net outputs

Re: Let's talk about LLMs

#140

Post by jatora »

aspenmartin wrote: post #107
strange_quark wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rapid improvement has occurred, because in this six month AI coding fever dream we've been living in, I really haven't seen anything new in awhile, both in terms of new ideas for AI coding or in new consumer products or services. I'll give you the coding harnesses themselves are better because that was a new product category with a lot of low-hanging fruit, but have the models actually improved in a way that isn…

I’m going to parrot back what you’re saying and you tell me if I’m getting close - AI coding is a disappointing fad (“fever dream?”). - that has not made meaningful progress in…6 months? - coding harness is improving - model improvements are lies: it’s just businesses “benchmaxxing” and misleading people. Real performance has not meaningfully improved - “opus 4.7 is a dud” - 5.5 suffering from “system collapse” (I’ve…

I'm pretty sure their mindset is pure cope. All top AI labs are agentically coding 100% now. There's a reason for that. Anyone not on that paradigm yet is either slow acting or purposefully resistant. (excluding workplace policies that hamstring you of course)
Post reply on HN