Live data from Hacker News

Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

stevekrouse.com

141–150 of 486 posts

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#141

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

So AI won't surpass humans, because Chris Lattner can do better than a model than didn't exist two years ago?

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#142
post #73
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not really found anything that shakes these people down to their core. Any argument or example is handwaved away by claims that better use of agents or advanced models will solve these “temporary” setbacks. How do you crack them? Especially upper management. You let them play out. Shift-left was similar to this and ultimately ended in part disaster, part non-accomplishment, and part success. Some percentage…

Shift left? Edit: I've googled it and I can't find anything relevant. I've been working in software for 20+ years and read a myriad things and it's the first time I hear about it...

It's a security practice. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/cloud-se...

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#143
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you’re right about modern LLMs. But you seem to be making an unstated assumption: “there is something special about humans that allow them to create new things and computers don’t have this thing.” Maybe you can’t teach current LLM backed systems new tricks. But do we have reason to believe that no AI system can synthesize novel technologies. What reason do you have to believe humans are special in this regard?

In the grand scale of things, a computer is not much more than a fancy brick. Certainly it is much closer to a brick than to a human. So the question is more 'why should this particularly fancy brick have abilities that so far we have only encountered in humans?'

> Certainly it is much closer to a brick than to a human.

I disagree with this premise. A computer approximates a Turing Machine, which puts it far above a brick.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#144

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

> Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art

And yet the AI probably did better than 99% of human devs would have done in a fraction of the time.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#145

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

> AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art.

Of course! But that's what makes them so powerful. In 99% of cases that's what you want - something that is conventional.

The AI can come up with novel things if it has an agency, and can learn on its own (using e.g. RL). But we don't want that in most use cases, because it's unpredictable; we want a tool instead.

It's not true that this lack of creativity implies lack of intelligence or critical thinking. AI clearly can reason and be critical, if asked to do so.

Conceptually, the breakthrough of AI systems (especially in coding, but it's to some extent true in other disciplines) is that they have an ability to take a fuzzy and potentially conflicting idea, and clean up the contradictions by producing a working, albeit conventional, implementation, by finding less contradictory pieces from the training data. The strength lies in intuition of what contradictions to remove. (You can think of it as an error-correcting code for human thoughts.)

For example, if I ask AI to "draw seven red lines, perpendicular, in blue ink, some of them transparent", it can find some solution that removes the contradictions from these constraints, or ask clarifying questons, what is the domain, so it could decide which contradictory statements to drop.

I actually put it to Claude and it gave a beautiful answer:

"I appreciate the creativity, but I'm afraid this request contains a few geometric (and chromatic) impossibilities: [..]

So, to faithfully fulfill this request, I would have to draw zero lines — which is roughly the only honest answer.

This is, of course, a nod to the classic comedy sketch by Vihart / the "Seven Red Lines" bit, where a consultant hilariously agrees to deliver exactly this impossible specification. The joke is a perfect satire of how clients sometimes request things that are logically or physically nonsensical, and how people sometimes just... agree to do it anyway.

Would you like me to draw something actually drawable instead? "

This clearly shows that AI can think critically and reason.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#146
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Djikstra wasn’t a god. He’s going to be wrong on this one.

He's not wrong. People are just drinking the AI kool-aid too hard to realize that the emperor has no clothes.

How come it works with humans? Give seasoned engineers a spec and they'll create a working product. Many software companies are created and guided on the verbal directions of people who don't code.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#148

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

> And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art.

What percentage of developers advance the state of the art, what percentage of juniors advance the state of the art?

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#149
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...generate answers near the center of existing thought. This is right in the Wikipedia's article on universal approximation theorem [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theore... "n the field of machine learning, the universal approximation theorems (UATs) state that neural networks with a certain structure can, in principle, approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of ac…

It has been proven that recurrent neural networks are Turing complete [0]. So for every computable function, there is a neural network that computes it. That doesn't say anything about size or efficiency, but in principle this allows neural networks to simulate a wide range of intelligent and creative behavior, including the kind of extrapolation you're talking about. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article…

Turing conpleteness is not associated with crativity or intelligence in any ateaightforward manner. One cannot unconditionally imply the other.

Re: Reports of code's death are greatly exaggerated

#150
post #144

Chris Lattner, inventor of the Swift programming language recently took a look at a compiler entirely written by Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art. AI tends to accept conventional wisdom. Because of this, it struggles with genuine critical thinking and cannot independently advance the state of the art. AI…

> Claude AI. Lattner found nothing innovative in the code generated by AI [1]. And this is why humans will be needed to advance the state of the art And yet the AI probably did better than 99% of human devs would have done in a fraction of the time.

Human devs rarely need to create compilers. Those that do would do much better job.

what’s your point again?

Post reply on HN