181–190 of 205 posts
There's is no AI in it. It just a wrapper to configure boilerplate. There are lots of SaaS boilerplate out there like this (gravity, nodewood). I don't know how simple app like this got approved in YC which has 1-2% acceptance rate.
It had the words AI in it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been looking around at open source offerings that can run on "affordable" hardware. Right now you can run something like GPT-J on 4 GTX 3090s, which will cost you anywhere between 6k and 8k not including the rest of the PC. Once functional models get small enough, I think we'll see an absolute explosion in AI as anyone with a laptop will be able to freely tinker with their models.
You can run GPT-J on an M1 or Pi if you want, you'll just have to settle for a pruned model. No self-hosted options (besides maybe Facebook's leaked thing) can stand up to ChatGPT's consistency or size. I've also been playing with this and have had great results for non-interactive use on even the smallest models (125m params, ~2gb RAM). The problem as I see it won't be inference time/acceleration as much as it will…
I've no clue how these would be wired together, but I have done ideas.
From the video, Second looks more like a UI wrapped over a boilerplate generators that have existed for quite a while. It's a pretty powerful one, and that can be very useful in itself but how is AI involved here? If it is, was it needed in the first place? I was expecting the inputs to be more along, "give me an app to manage a restaurant", but the inputs are modules (Forgot password, billing), which are generic pie…
Great question! So all of the files are generated with either compiles or GPT-3, or if the files already exist on the repo and need to be modified, the bots use GPT-3 code edits to modify the files. $299/project/month will sound expensive if you compare it to starter kits (usually free), templates (usually Also, yea pricing is hard! It may change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely think people wont get hired though, that otherwise would If it is successful, it increases jobs in the field, while shifting skill demands to higher levels of analysis/abstraction. Just like every change improvement in how you program computers since "physically configure wiring or switches". Possibly some individuals won't get hired in the field that otherwise would have, but the size of the field dev…
Software has been automating itself for 75 years. Automation cannibalizing itself forever. And yet there are more programmers than ever. AI will just expand the amount of software or create whole new fields on top.
I feel like the early days of programming might've been actually easier to automate. There was often well designed specs, cleaner design and architectural patterns to follow etc. Not in all cases of course however now, I'm seeing people hoping to god that ChatGPT can write a client for the worlds shittiest XML API because no one else sure as hell wants to do it.
So what happens now? We just generate more shit and then use moar AI (tm) to work with moar shit (tm), and evolve that pattern fast and faster?
Yesterday I was using co-pilot and it was suggesting a bunch of obvious auto-completes etc, which is fine, that's why I use it, then it hit me, most people are probably going to start to not bother with libraries, clean APIs and specs because soon you will be just brute forcing your way to a solution using text to code and on we go. Maybe the answer will really just be to keep evolving generative coding AIs to keep up with it, let's see how it goes.
(a) If it's about modules, currently, people tend to use some open source projects or buy existing solutions (for example, SaaS dashboards). Is the core value the code copied into the repo?
(b) Does the code written by the bot match the repo style? Not just the file names and variable/functions names, but the overall code architecture, including database integration?
(c) I'm guessing most people would ask for similar modules (forgot password, subscription, billing, profile settings etc.). Will you generate the code every time through prompts or re-using (or mapping) some existing code previously developed for other customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you forgot one alternative - chatgpt, which is $20/month and infinitely flexible
True, but it's still work. Using ChatGPT manually is great, but it's not as fast as configuring a feature and then having the whole thing built and integrated. A lot of users also struggle with knowing what to even ask ChatGPT, unless they are already an experienced developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely think people wont get hired though, that otherwise would If it is successful, it increases jobs in the field, while shifting skill demands to higher levels of analysis/abstraction. Just like every change improvement in how you program computers since "physically configure wiring or switches". Possibly some individuals won't get hired in the field that otherwise would have, but the size of the field dev…
Software has been automating itself for 75 years. Automation cannibalizing itself forever. And yet there are more programmers than ever. AI will just expand the amount of software or create whole new fields on top.
But these are fundamentally different from AI. As I mentioned above, Fred Brooks in his essay (The Mythical Man-month) would argue that all these just decrease the accidental complexity. The incidental complexity still remains. I.e. taking a vague description, an idea, something embedded in the heads of the stakeholders and turning it into some kind of actual computer code, finding and removing inconsistencies and with a minimal number of bugs. Now AI will be able to do it one day. And it seems that day is not that far away in the future.
The hard move is going from a vague set of incomplete requirements (which is always the case) to specific, executable code. We never had a tool that can do this transformation. Until now(ish).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software has been automating itself for 75 years. Automation cannibalizing itself forever. And yet there are more programmers than ever. AI will just expand the amount of software or create whole new fields on top.
I guess there is more complexity than ever too? I feel like the early days of programming might've been actually easier to automate. There was often well designed specs, cleaner design and architectural patterns to follow etc. Not in all cases of course however now, I'm seeing people hoping to god that ChatGPT can write a client for the worlds shittiest XML API because no one else sure as hell wants to do it. So what…
OTOH, so much for the idea that people will guide the hand of AI to create better code. As this will unfold, there will be ever more incentives to remove (most) humans from the loop. And if past can be used to predict the future, what we have seen so far is that when AI gets reasonably competent at something it will gain superhuman capabilities very quickly. I still keep bringing up how people thought that after alpha go beat Fan Hui (European go champion) it would have taken a huge leap for it to beat Lee Sedol. Because Lee Sedol was so much better than Fan Hui. At least in human terms. It only took a few months of training and tinkering for DeepMind.
Speaking of loops: since AIs are taught from the internet (simple language models or coding specialists), we're creating an unwanted feedback loop here. More AI generated content will likely make teaching future AIs harder. At least with information harvested from the internet after ~2022-ish.
While I have been expecting AI to replace programmers for a while, the thing I was never sure about whether this will manifest itself as a business for some companies or whether it means the end of people creating apps altogether. Another risk for building businesses on AI in general is that unlike with software that anyone can build (e.g. for a niche), AI solutions seem to be costly because they require a lot of dat…
I mean you're not wrong about the rug pull scenario, and you're specifically increasing reliance on one monolithic company. That said, you have exactly the same category of risk with hiring an employee or team. They could leave at any point also. You always have the option to contract in handcuffs or a notice period, but then the same applies to the AI tooling as well. In the same way this can't end up much worse tha…
That's one thing. The other thing is that employees who leave only hamper future development not the current business/operation. (Again, unless a large number of employees leave in a short time, which means you have screwed up something.) Once you have a stable organization, you can replace individual employees at a reasonable rate without serious issues. (You actually have to prepare for this as employees will leave, no matter what.)
The big difference with cloud providers is that they really offer something that's complementary and not something that can easily be turned into your product. (I mean except for the SaaS companies that really just repackage the cloud offer into an easier to use product. They are definitely at risk all the time.)
While I have been expecting AI to replace programmers for a while, the thing I was never sure about whether this will manifest itself as a business for some companies or whether it means the end of people creating apps altogether. Another risk for building businesses on AI in general is that unlike with software that anyone can build (e.g. for a niche), AI solutions seem to be costly because they require a lot of dat…
I just released - https://vocalvoters.com/ It sends an AI generated letter to a congress person in a seconds. Users can edit it, but frankly the results are amazingly good. I bring it up because effectively exactly what you described - a shim on top of 4 APIs. (Code is open sourced, link on the site) The question is how will AI replace what I have? The AI might get better, but ultimately someone has to mail the lette…
I think you answered your own question:
> Sure the AI systems of the future could theoretically do all that, but it’s still the same work/services.
That's it. At the moment, you had to wire together 4 APIs and, as you said, this wouldn't do the job without using (someone else's) AI. So this works as a business/service as long as the AI is not able to handle those 4 APIs by itself (or 3, if the AI is one of them). And it doesn't even have to figure out using these APIs, some company (I'd expect the owner of the AI) can create interfaces.
Not that ChatGPT doesn't know how to use APIs itself. I started a quick experiment, that I didn't have the time to finish yet, making it create a simple GUI app that is connected to a specific SaaS API. Nothing fancy.
At first it would reject my request when I told it to create an app that uses that API saying that it can't create apps. Then I told it to generate code for the main window with the most important details. And it did. Then I told it to create an API wrapper for the API. Then I told it to connect the API wrapper with the gui. Honestly, nothing that it couldn't do if it didn't reject my original request with "I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I'm not able to generate code for you."
So I don't see how the current state of affairs is too far from me being able to say to a similar AI agent to send a letter to a congress person regarding this and that cause where my opinion is X.