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

r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 236 posts

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#191

Post by gavinray »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #149
pscanf wrote: post #40

I gave up on r/programming after an article I wrote (thoughtfully, without AI, even though the content might not have been super interesting) got mod-slapped with a stickied comment "This content is low quality, stolen, blogspam, or clearly AI generated". Ironically, that comment was added three months after I posted the article, when it was nowhere near the front page anymore, in a clearly automated and AI-driven re…

Reddit is a low-quality platform, the sorts of people who would be interested in moderating a popular subreddit like r/programming are even less fit to be moderators than the average moderator is. It would be better if people completely stopped using the platform.

It's useful for syndicating your self-hosted blog content so that when people Google topics your stuff shows up.

I generally fire-and-forget on Reddit, except for more niche communities where sometimes domain experts actually comment

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#192

Post by estimator7292 »

tovej wrote: post #182
hu3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that everyone using LLMs is vibe coding is equally hilarious.

If you use an LLM to generate source code you are vibecoding. You specify the problem in natural language (the vibes) and the LLM spits out source (the code). Whether you review it or not, that is vibecoding. You did not go through the rigor of translating the requirements to a programming language, you had a nondeterministic black box generate something in the rough general vicinity of the prompt. Are people serious…

> If you use an LLM to generate source code you are vibecoding

No, you're not.

> Are people seriously trying to redefine what vibecoding is?

Yes, you are.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#193

Post by estimator7292 »

jyrkesh wrote: post #44

I know this snarky, I'm sorry ahead of time. But I don't know how else to make this point... The fact that the people running r/progamming don't know not to wait until April 2 to publish this tells me that they don't have real-world experience in shipping software in a business environment. We are SO past the point of software being developed without LLMs at _all_, the trend line is never going to reverse. I don't un…

If you can possibly believe it, there are millions of programmers who have never and will never touch

Python, cmake, bash, perl, every conceivable tool or language, there's millions of people in the industry who will never touch them.

This might be a wild concept, so make sure you're sitting down: the field of software engineering is unfathomably larger than your personal, extremely narrow, viewpoint.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#194

Post by phpnode »

yoz-y wrote: post #179
phpnode wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same argument that people used to have against compilers

It is not. One version of a compiler on one platform transforms a specific input into an exact and predictable artefact. A compiler will tell you what is wrong. On top of that the intent is 100% preserved even when it is wrong. An LLM will transform an arbitrarily vague input into an output. Adding more specification may or may not change the output. There is a fundamental difference between asking for “make me a ser…

Right, they allow for the idea of gradual specification - you can write in broad strokes where you don't care about the details, and in fine detail when you do. Whether the LLM followed the spec or not is mostly down to having the right tooling.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#195

Post by array_key_first »

johnfn wrote: post #173
mrcsharp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, almost every single time a conversation like this happens in real life it boils down to the one side claiming that "This is the future" and "Don't get left behind" followed by a torrent of hype and buzzwords. So no, there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore.

Maybe you struggle to have good conversations because I just provided an anecdote and you immediately stated that my anecdote is false? If this is how you typically interact with people I’m not surprised you’re not having interesting conversations.

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience, not yours.

Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you!

And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be unlikable or something. Which, in another twist of irony, actually makes YOU appear unlikable, because what well-adjusted adult would feel the need to throw someone under the bus for slightly disagreeing with them?

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#196

Post by AnimalMuppet »

array_key_first wrote: post #195
johnfn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you struggle to have good conversations because I just provided an anecdote and you immediately stated that my anecdote is false? If this is how you typically interact with people I’m not surprised you’re not having interesting conversations.

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience , not yours. Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you! And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be u…

The problem is that mrcsharp added the last sentence: "So no, there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore." So they are definitely trying to turn their anecdote into a universal.

Most of your comments about johnfn are still apropos, though...

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#197

Post by johnfn »

array_key_first wrote: post #195
johnfn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you struggle to have good conversations because I just provided an anecdote and you immediately stated that my anecdote is false? If this is how you typically interact with people I’m not surprised you’re not having interesting conversations.

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience , not yours. Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you! And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be u…

He said:

> "there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore"

The first sentence was in his experience, but this is a universal assertion. He is claiming no one, in the world, is having interesting conversations about LLMs.

Is my response really so off-base? Imagine you say "I like Rust because it made my app go fast" and someone replies "There is no one who has used Rust to improve performance." Do you really think that's a normal way to respond to someone sharing an anecdote?

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#198

Post by array_key_first »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #196
array_key_first wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience , not yours. Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you! And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be u…

The problem is that mrcsharp added the last sentence: "So no, there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore." So they are definitely trying to turn their anecdote into a universal. Most of your comments about johnfn are still apropos, though...

IMO since it started as clearly an opinion/anecdote, that last part should be taken to mean in that context, not universally.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#199

Post by array_key_first »

johnfn wrote: post #197
array_key_first wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't state your anecdote is false, the first two words of his comment are "for me". That means in his experience , not yours. Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you! And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be u…

He said: > "there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore" The first sentence was in his experience, but this is a universal assertion. He is claiming no one, in the world, is having interesting conversations about LLMs. Is my response really so off-base? Imagine you say "I like Rust because it made my app go fast" and someone replies "There is no one who has used Rust to improve perfo…

But that's not how he responded because there's a whole ass comment before that.

Okay sure, if you read the comment and then use a Men in Black mind wiper thingy before reading the last sentence, then it might seem brazen or universal. But that's not what you did.

The only way that last comment can reasonably be taken to mean "for everyone on Earth" is if you did not read the lines before it. Because, in that context, to me, it's clear he is only talking about his experience.

This is a phenomena I've noticed lately where everyone feels the need to add a disclaimer for everything and not doing so is seen as an "aha gotcha!" type thing. But we're not algorithms. You do not read one line at a time and then digest it.

You're human, he's human, and there's context. You know that it would be extremely unreasonable for someone to think that nobody, anywhere, has anything to say about LLMs right? Okay. That doesn't mean that this person is being unreasonable.

It means that that's probably not what he meant.

Re: r/programming bans all discussion of LLM programming

#200

Post by johnfn »

array_key_first wrote: post #199
johnfn wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said: > "there is no interesting conversations to be had about LLM programming anymore" The first sentence was in his experience, but this is a universal assertion. He is claiming no one, in the world, is having interesting conversations about LLMs. Is my response really so off-base? Imagine you say "I like Rust because it made my app go fast" and someone replies "There is no one who has used Rust to improve perfo…

But that's not how he responded because there's a whole ass comment before that. Okay sure, if you read the comment and then use a Men in Black mind wiper thingy before reading the last sentence, then it might seem brazen or universal. But that's not what you did. The only way that last comment can reasonably be taken to mean "for everyone on Earth" is if you did not read the lines before it. Because, in that context…

Read his comment in context. The comment thread, condensed, is:

mudkipdev says "There can't be any interesting discussion about AI programming". We agree that is a universal claim. (Right? I mean, your comment says "You know that it would be extremely unreasonable for someone to think that nobody, anywhere, has anything to say about LLMs right" but isn't this a clear example?)

I say "There can be". We agree that is anecdotal.

mrcsharp says "For me, [stuff that supports mudkipdev]. Therefore, there is no interesting discussion".

He is re-asserting mudkipdev's point. mudkipdev says A, I say !A, he says, actually, A.

Your interpretation has him read the back-and-forth between me and mudkipdev, and respond to "A", "!A" with "B". If you only read mrcsharp and nothing else in the thread I can understand this reading, but the context changes things.

Post reply on HN