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

AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

koshyjohn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 656 posts

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#171

Post by willhslade »

ua709 wrote: post #88
xnx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept won't reach that point because when you chisel too hard it crumbles. There are countless lower level tasks that typical programmers no longer learn how to do. Our capacity for knowledge is not unlimited so we offload everything we can to move to the next level of abstraction.

I get your point, I just wonder how accurate it is. We basically never look at the output of the compiler, so I agree that tool allows one to operate at a higher level than assembly. But I always have to wade through the output from AI so I’m not sure I got to move to the next level of abstraction. But maybe that’s just me.

Are compilers deterministic?

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#174

Post by Krssst »

lsy wrote: post #117
xnx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept won't reach that point because when you chisel too hard it crumbles. There are countless lower level tasks that typical programmers no longer learn how to do. Our capacity for knowledge is not unlimited so we offload everything we can to move to the next level of abstraction.

AI coding isn’t an abstraction, though. You can’t treat a prompt like source code because it will give you a different output every time you use it. An abstraction lets you offload cognitive capacity while retaining knowledge of “what you are doing”. With AI coding either you need to carefully review outputs and you aren’t saving any cognitive capacity, or you aren’t looking at the outputs and don’t know what you’re…

Non-determinism is not as much of a problem as the lack of spec. C++ has the C++ norm, Python has its manual. One can refer to it to predict reliably how the program will behave without thinking of the generated assembly. LLMs have no spec.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#177

Post by LtWorf »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #28
saadn92 wrote: post #10

Hard disagree. I feel like I'm thinking a lot more now because I have so many parallel projects going on at the same time. AI has allowed me to really, truly create in a way that I've never done before. Yes, my coding skills probably aren't as sharp as they used to be, but my system design skills are at an all time high. Don't blame the tool.

"Hard disagree because it doesn't affect me personally" There is already research literally showing that on average it is a net loss on focus, learning and critical thinking skills.

I think the type of people who get hyped about the cool thing aren't the kind of people who pay much attention to research and science.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#178

Post by LtWorf »

erxam wrote: post #42

Here's the question I want to posit and nobody who's against AI has managed to answer satisfactorily: what is it in for me if I were to acquire all those skills? I don't give a shit about this career. I don't give a shit about engineering. I despise every second of it. There's nothing to aim for other than being a drone that does whatever is asked of it. If AI can reduce my mental workload, why wouldn't I want to del…

I mean… there's other jobs in the world. If you chose to do something you hate, that's maybe a bit your fault too?

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#179

Post by coldtea »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #166
coldtea wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! "Structured, mature, legally enforced, physically grounded standards based approach to the construction of repeatable, reliable, verifiable, artifacts under stable (to the degree that matters) external constraints". Some niche software development (e.g. NASA/JPL coding projects with special rules, practices, MISRA etc) can…

By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. It's correct to claim that software engineering isn't currently an accredited profession and it's also quite reasonable to question the extent to which the vast majority of software development qualifies as the practice of engineering. But the latter is highly subjective and will likely also rule out a significant fraction of the gru…

>By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers.

And they weren't. They were craftsmen and tradesmen, e.g. stonemasons.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#180

Post by vict7 »

thunky wrote: post #160
vict7 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDEs are free. Libraries are free. Languages are free. This is becoming more like an internet subscription where you’re at the mercy of Anthropic the same way you may be at the mercy of Comcast. I’m sure you can see the difference between a garbage collector and a nondeterministic slop generator But it feels good to equivocate, so here we are.

Not all IDEs are free. Not all LLMs are subscriptions.

> Not all

is doing a lot of work to avoid engaging with the actual argument.

Post reply on HN