Live data from Hacker News

AI coding is gambling

notes.visaint.space

161–170 of 471 posts

Re: AI coding is gambling

#161

You got to know when to Ship it, Know when to Re-prompt, Know when to Clear the Context, And know when to RLHF. You never trust the Output, When you’re staring at the diff view, There’ll (not) be time enough for Fixing, When the Tokens are all spent.

I really hope that was your creativity and not AI

Re: AI coding is gambling

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Because the programming is and was always a means to an end. No. Programming is a specific act (writing code), and that act is also a means to an end. But getting to the goal does not mean you did programming. Saying "I'm good at programming" when you are just using LLMs to generate code for you is like saying "I'm good at driving" when you only ever take an Uber and don't ever drive yourself. It's complete nonsens…

I guess I agree with you, but I think the GP may have mispoke and meant he loves building software. It's sort of like the difference between knitting and making clothes. The GP likely loves making clothes on an abstract basis and realized that he won't have to knit anymore to do so. And he really never liked knitting in the first place, as it was just a means to an end.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#163

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

Good sir, have you heard the Good Word of the Waterfall development process? It sounds like that's what you are describing

Re: AI coding is gambling

#164
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Interns learn. LLMs only get better when a new model comes out, which will happen (or not) regardless of whether you use them now. 2. Who here thinks that having interns write all/almost all of your code and moving all your mid level and senior developers to exclusively reviewing their work and managing them is a good idea?

I don't know that the "humans learn, LLMs don't" argument holds any more with coding agents. Coding agents look at existing text in the codebase before they act. If they previously used a pattern you dislike and you tell them how to do differently, the next time they run they'll see the new pattern and are much more likely to follow that example. There are fancier ways of having them "learn" - self-updating CLAUDE.md…

It is a matter of fact that LLMs cannot learn. Whether it is dressed up in slightly different packaging to trick you into thinking it learns does not make any difference to that fact.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#165
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…

That says more about how you see developers than whether or not managers are in a sense gamblers.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#166
An idea just occurred to me: why not tell AI to code in Coq? AFAIK the selling point of that language is that if it compiles, then it's guaranteed to work. It's just that it's PITA to write code in Coq, but AI won't get annoyed and quit.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#167
post #82

It’s variable rewards and even with large models the same question can lead to dramatically different answers. Possibly because they route your request through different models. Possibly because the model has more time to dig through the problem. Nonetheless we have some illusion of control over the output (you we wouldn’t be playing it) but it is just the quality of the model itself that leads to better outcomes - n…

Well said! My only qualm with this is saying you hope "it" has our interests at heart. "It" is a machine made by humans that work for corporations. I would correct your hope to, "I hope they have our interest at heart by then."

Re: AI coding is gambling

#168

It's only "gambling" for now... The odds of success feel like gambling. 60%, or 40%, or worse. This is downstream of model quality. Soon, 80%, 95%, 99%, 99.99%. Then, it won't be "gambling" anymore.

Have you ever heard of an extrapolation like that being incorrect?

Re: AI coding is gambling

#169
post #127
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.

Great analogy, I’m saving it!

Re: AI coding is gambling

#170

All of this new capability has made me realize that the reason i love programming _isn't_ the same as the OP. I used to think (and tell others) that I loved understanding something deeply, wading through the details to figure out a tough problem. but actually, being able to will anything I can think of into existence is what I love about programming. I do feel for the people who were able to make careers out of falli…

> 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?

I think this is a semantics thing. I feel the same way, but I wouldn't say that I feel like I'm good at programming. I'm most certainly not. What I am good at is product design and development, and LLM tech has made it so that I can concentrate on features, business models, and users.
Post reply on HN