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

Using LLMs at Oxide

rfd.shared.oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 284 posts

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#171

Post by cheeseface »

mcqueenjordan wrote: post #28

As usual with Oxide's RFDs, I found myself vigorously head-nodding while reading. Somewhat rarely, I found a part that I found myself disagreeing with: > Unlike prose, however (which really should be handed in a polished form to an LLM to maximize the LLM’s efficacy), LLMs can be quite effective writing code de novo. Don't the same arguments against using LLMs to write one's prose also apply to code? Was this structu…

There are cases where I would start the coding process by copy-pasting existing code (e.g. test suites, new screens in the UI) and this is where LLMs work especially well and produce code that is majority of the time production-ready as-is.

A common prompt I use is approximately ”Write tests for file X, look at Y on how to setup mocks.”

This is probably not ”de novo” and in terms of writing is maybe closer to something like updating a case study powerpoint with the current customer’s data.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#172

Post by peheje »

I know I'm walking into a den of wolves here and will probably get buried in downvotes, but I have to disagree with the idea that using LLMs for writing breaks some social contract.

If you hand me a financial report, I expect you used Excel or a calculator. I don't feel cheated that you didn't do long division by hand to prove your understanding. Writing is no different. The value isn't in how much you sweated while producing it. The value is in how clear the final output is.

Human communication is lossy. I think X, I write X' (because I'm imperfect), you understand Y. This is where so many misunderstandings and workplace conflicts come from. People overestimate how clear they are. LLMs help reduce that gap. They remove ambiguity, clean up grammar, and strip away the accidental noise that gets in the way of the actual point.

Ultimately, outside of fiction and poetry, writing is data transmission. I don't need to know that the writer struggled with the text. I need to understand the point clearly, quickly, and without friction. Using a tool that delivers that is the highest form of respect for the reader.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#173

Post by growse »

peheje wrote: post #172

I know I'm walking into a den of wolves here and will probably get buried in downvotes, but I have to disagree with the idea that using LLMs for writing breaks some social contract. If you hand me a financial report, I expect you used Excel or a calculator. I don't feel cheated that you didn't do long division by hand to prove your understanding. Writing is no different. The value isn't in how much you sweated while…

> The value is in how clear the final output is.

Clarity is useless if it's inaccurate.

Excel is deterministic. ChatGPT isn't.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#174

Post by grufkork »

peheje wrote: post #172

I know I'm walking into a den of wolves here and will probably get buried in downvotes, but I have to disagree with the idea that using LLMs for writing breaks some social contract. If you hand me a financial report, I expect you used Excel or a calculator. I don't feel cheated that you didn't do long division by hand to prove your understanding. Writing is no different. The value isn't in how much you sweated while…

I think the main problem is people using the tool badly and not producing concise material. If what they produced was really lean and correct it'd be great, but you grow a bit tired when you have to expend time reviewing and parsing long, winding and straight wrong PRs and messages from _people_ who have not put in the time.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#175

Post by frankest »

christophilus wrote: post #84
frankest wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DreamWeaver absolutely destroyed the code with all kinds of tags and unnecessary stuff. Especially if you used the visual editor. It was fun for brainstorming but plain notepad with clean understandable code was far far better (and with the browser compatibility issues the only option if you were going to production).

After 25 or so years doing this, I think there are two kinds of developers: craftsmen and practical “does it get the job done” types. I’m the former. The latter seem to be what makes the world go round.

After becoming a founder and having to deal with my own code for a decade, I’ve learned a balance. Prototype fast with AI crap to get the insight than write slow with structure for stuff that goes to production. AI does not touch production code - ask when needed to fix a tiny bit, but keep the beast at arms distance.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#176

Post by govping »

thundergolfer wrote: post #4

A measured, comprehensive, and sensible take. Not surprising from Bryan. This was a nice line: > it’s just embarrassing — it’s as if the writer is walking around with their intellectual fly open. I think Oxide didn't include this in the RFD because they exclusively hire senior engineers, but in an organization that contains junior engineers I'd add something specific to help junior engineers understand how they shoul…

Interesting tension between craft and speed with LLMs. I've been building with AI assistance for the past week (terminal clients, automation infrastructure) and found the key is: use AI for scaffolding and boilerplate, but hand-refine anything customer-facing or complex. The 'intellectual fly open' problem is real when you just ship AI output directly. But AI + human refinement can actually enable better craft by handling the tedious parts. Not either/or, but knowing which parts deserve human attention vs which can be delegated.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#177

Post by pmg101 »

mulmboy wrote: post #132
girvo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “change capture”/straight jacket style tests LLMs like to output drive me nuts. But humans write those all the time too so I shouldn’t be that surprised either!

What do these look like?

  1. Take every single function, even private ones.
  2. Mock every argument and collaborator.
  3. Call the function.
  4. Assert the mocks were  called in the expected way.
These tests help you find inadvertent changes, yes, but they also create constant noise about changes you intend.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#178

Post by akoboldfrying »

yard2010 wrote: post #149
cobertos wrote: post #96

> LLMs are especially good at evaluating documents to assess the degree that an LLM assisted their creation!) That's a bold claim. Do they have data to back this up? I'd only have confidence to say this after testing this against multiple LLM outputs, but does this really work for, e.g. the em dash leaderboard of HN or people who tell an LLM to not do these 10 LLM-y writing cliches? I would need to see their reasonin…

I thought about it - a quick way to verify whether something was created with LLM is to feed an LLM half of the text and then let it complete token by token. Every completion, check not just for the next token but the next n-probable tokens. If one of them is the one you have in the text, pick it and continue. This way, I think, you can identify how much the model is "correct" by predicting the text it hasn't yet see…

I expect that, for values of n for which this test consistently reports "LLM-generated" on LLM-generated inputs, it will also consistently report "LLM-generated" on human-generated inputs. But I haven't done the test either so I could be wrong.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#179

Post by xorcist »

christophilus wrote: post #86
zx8080 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I swear it built the comprehension I have today. For interns/junior engineers, the choice is: comprehension VS career. And I won't be surprised if most of them will go with career now, and comprehension.. well thanks maybe tomorrow (or never).

I don’t think that’s the dichotomy. I’ve been in charge of hiring at a few companies, and comprehension is what I look for 10 times out of 10.

There are plenty of companies today where "not using AI enough" is a career problem.

It shouldn't be, but it is.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#180

Post by msephton »

frankest wrote: post #74
zackerydev wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember in the very first class I ever took on Web Design the teacher spent an entire semester teaching "first principles" of HTML, CSS and JavaScript by writing it in Notepad. It was only then did she introduce us to the glory that was Adobe Dreamweaver, which (obviously) increased our productivity tenfold.

DreamWeaver absolutely destroyed the code with all kinds of tags and unnecessary stuff. Especially if you used the visual editor. It was fun for brainstorming but plain notepad with clean understandable code was far far better (and with the browser compatibility issues the only option if you were going to production).

Judicious and careful use of Dreamweaver (its visual editor and properties bar) enabled me to write exactly the code I wanted. I used Dreamweaver foot table layouts and Home Site (later Top Style) for broader code edits. At that time I was famous with the company for being able to make any layout. Good times!
Post reply on HN