Live data from Hacker News

LLMs as the new high level language

federicopereiro.com

171–180 of 396 posts

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s barely any debate, people don’t answer each other; It’s rather about invoking the wonder and imagination of everyone’s brain. Like spatial conquest or an economic crisis: It will change everything but you can’t do anything immediately about it, and everyone tries to understand what it will change so they can adapt. It’s more akin to 24hrs junk news cycle, where everything is presented as an alert but your tem…

I am interested in a post that will teach me how to consume only the news that really relevant for me

[deleted]

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may have bad news for you on how compilers typically work.

The difference is that what most languages compile to is much much more stable than what is produced by running a spec through an LLM. A language or a library might change the implementation of a sorting algorithm once in a few years. An LLM is likely to do it every time you regenerate the code. It’s not just a matter of non-determinism either, but about how chaotic LLMs are. Compilers can produce different machine c…

> A language or a library might change the implementation of a sorting algorithm once in a few years.

I think GP was referring to heuristics and PGO.

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#173
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but that's the point -- prompting an LLM still requires 'thinking about thinking' in the Papert sense. While you can talk to it in 'natural language' that natural language still needs to be _precise_ in order to get the exact result that you want. When it fails, you need to refine your language until it doesn't. So prompts = high-level programming.

You can't think all the way about refining your prompt for LLMs as they are probabilistic. Your re-prompts are just retrying until you hit a jackpot - refining only works to increase the chance to get what you want. When making them deterministic (setting the temperature to 0), LLMs (even new ones) get stuck in loops for longer streams of output tokens. The only way to make sure you get the same output twice is to us…

... yet.

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#174
> Using LLM agents is expensive: if they give you already 50% more productivity, and your salary is an average salary, they are not. And LLMs will only get cheaper. They are only expensive in absolute, not in relative terms.

critical distinction: unless your getting paid comparable to your ouput (literally 0 traditional 9-5 software jobs I know unfortunately) this is infact the opposite - a subscription to any of these services reduces your overall salary, it doesnt make it higher...

then there is the case i know the dishonest are doing is firing of claude or whatever and going for a walk

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#175

At this point I'm just waiting for people claiming they managed team of 20 people, where "20 people" were LLMs being fed a prompt

It's not a complete agentic setup until your chain of command goes at least nine levels deep.*

I want my C-suite and V-suite LLMs to feel like they earned their positions through hard work, values, and commitment to their company.

* = (Not to be confused with a famous poem by Dante Alighieri)

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#176

We’re missing the boat here. There are already companies with millions in revenue that are pure agent loops of English text. They can do things our traditional software cannot.

An example or two would go a long way here.

A natural question to ask in response, but I did not find out in each case in a way where I should say anything about their engineering so since I've said something about that I can't say who. I get how it comes off. If the Criterion of Embarrassment helps, I find myself sorely unqualified for this new world.

To be honest, I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. It isn't useful as it is because you can't reasonably believe me. I just feel blindsided by the stuff that's working now.

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#177
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I talk to my cousin who's doing the web hosting and he says he can't host a "Pee Haich Pee" site I already addressed this exact argument in another comment. In short: hosting is an implementation detail. The LLM can solve this problem just like any coding bug. The user can give his cousin's email to the LLM, which will solve the issue by finding better hosting, rewriting the program in another language, or using Do…

> The user can give his cousin's email to the LLM, which will solve the issue by finding better hosting, rewriting the program in another language, or using Docker. Can you please point to a currently available LLM that can do this?

Openclaw

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#178

The side effect of using LLMs for programming is that no new programming language can now emerge to be popular, that we will be stuck with the existing programming languages forever for broad use. Newer languages will never accumulate enough training data for the LLM to master them. Granted, non-LLM AIs with true neural memory can work around this, as can LLMs with an infinite token frozen+forkable context, but these…

you can invent a new language, ask LLM to translate existing code bases into it, then train on that

Just like AlphaZero ditched human Go matches and trained on synthetic ones, and got better this way

Re: LLMs as the new high level language

#179
post #161

At this point I'm just waiting for people claiming they managed team of 20 people, where "20 people" were LLMs being fed a prompt

This claim has been going around for a while. I know someone who has been spending $7k / month on Cursor tokens for the past six months, managing such a team of agents… But curiously the results seem to be endless PDF-ware, and every month there’s a new reason why the project is not yet quite ready to be used on real data. LLMs are very good at making you think they’re giving you what you hoped to get.

They're also very good at demoralizing people who actually code for a living. Or at least the hype surrounding them is. Up until a couple years ago I'd simply dive into a new coding assignment and be excited to solve all the problems. Some new widget? Maybe I could find a way to make the UX flow better, or add a couple neat little transitions, or heck even improve the mechanics or the business logic. I now find myself looking at assignments and thinking: Is this a waste of my time? I know how I'd do it, but I'm prone to a lot of yak-shaving and perfectionism. Should I just ask Claude to do it?

So alright, let's see what Claude does.

And then I get presented with a piece of code and a product that I wouldn't have chosen - but in some cases would be perfectly sufficient for minor work I shouldn't be yak-shaving. On the other hand, going beyond the simplest or most obvious is how I built my business. Bringing ideas to the table and executing them. So then I discard the Claude code and sit down to write it from scratch.

It is at that exact point that I start to wonder: does anyone even care?

People who take the time to think deeply through their work, and who "hammer in the extra nail" as my grandpa used to say (he was a general contractor) do so most often for their own sense of pride in a job well done, and for the trust that comes from their clients or employers knowing that they will go the extra mile and do a job well. But what happens when employers or clients don't treat the work as important - and when they would be okay with a bad or mediocre version on the cheap? That's not a new problem - usually I just won't work for those people.

But I just hate the pessimistic feeling I get about doing what I always loved to do - writing bespoke code - when I constantly keep asking myself do these vibe coders know something more than I do? Should I try yet again on that route? Worse, am I just wasting my time perfecting something that no one else will appreciate?

To anyone outside engineering, writing code looks like wizardry. I think the most common and most demoralizing outcome of LLM vibe coding has been to incorrectly make them think it's suddenly easier. And a new crop of vibe coders who think they don't have to think for themselves? They're not engineers. They may even be enemies of good engineering. They have more in common with the bosses and clients we've always had who said "hey, this should be a very easy request, can you just add a button to the customer app that will (fill in the blank with some wildly complicated business transaction that definitely can't be handled in one click).

All of it is sapping my motivation to do what I was good at, which is, solving problems and writing well tested code.

Sorry for the rant.

Post reply on HN