Live data from Hacker News

The fundamentals still matter

jordangoodman.bearblog.dev

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#21
> I worry that we are being over sold on a promise that LLMs will magically make up for a lack of proficiency in an area

I saw a post on twitter about how game devs were using ChatGPT for localization and when you translated the text to English it said something like “as a chat assistant I’m unable to translate this concept” or an explanation instead of the translation.

This is exactly the sort of future I imagine with AI - not that the grunts on the ground will be sold on it but management will be convinced they can fire the people who know what they’re doing and replace them with interns armed with a ChatGPT subscription

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#22
post #21

> I worry that we are being over sold on a promise that LLMs will magically make up for a lack of proficiency in an area I saw a post on twitter about how game devs were using ChatGPT for localization and when you translated the text to English it said something like “as a chat assistant I’m unable to translate this concept” or an explanation instead of the translation. This is exactly the sort of future I imagine wi…

>I saw a post on twitter about how game devs were using ChatGPT for localization and when you translated the text to English it said something like “as a chat assistant I’m unable to translate this concept”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7702913.stm

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#23

> Maybe another industry of cleaning up vibe coded messes will be a thing? I have seriously considered hanging out my shingle to do this freelance, I don't think the time is quite ripe yet but maybe in a few months.

Basically the same as cleaning up after they hired the cheapest dev they can find. Something our little shop has been doing for 4 years now. Can't wait to charge to debug a 100,000 line vibe coded WordPress plugin.

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#24

I’m guilty of this. I’m trying to be more mindful when using LLM-generated code. It’s mostly a personal issue: I tend to procrastinate and hope the code “just works.” We need to stay vigilant,otherwise we will pay the cost by fixing LLM bugs later.

First time ive ever heard someone admit this, only ever heard people accuse theur coworkers of it. This is honestly a very sad thing to hear a professional dev say

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#25
post #23

> Maybe another industry of cleaning up vibe coded messes will be a thing? I have seriously considered hanging out my shingle to do this freelance, I don't think the time is quite ripe yet but maybe in a few months.

Basically the same as cleaning up after they hired the cheapest dev they can find. Something our little shop has been doing for 4 years now. Can't wait to charge to debug a 100,000 line vibe coded WordPress plugin.

Oh god, there will be money in this for sure, but at what cost?!?

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#26
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think the example given (creating SQL queries) is a good representation of this problem.

That's because if you know a little bit of SQL and know how to validate the answer LLMs give you this becomes a non-issue.

A better example would be an ambiguous prompt where the LLM can either use an array or a map to solve your problem so it chooses an array. But down the road you need a feature where direct access is what you need, but your code is already using arrays. In this situation what tends to happen is the LLMs ends up making some hack on top of your arrays to create this new feature and the code gets real bad.

By not understanding the difference between these 2 data structures you aren't able to specify what needs to be done and the LLM ends up implementing your feature in an additive way. And when you add enough features in this way things get messy.

What is still not clear to me is what is the proper "abstraction layer" we need to use to learn things in this new world where LLMs are available.

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#27
post #11

So, Karl Marx predicted that the capitalism will eat itself because capitalists will value creating money itself (and money-making enterprises, such as asset bubbles) more than the actual production of goods. This was later elaborated by many people, but since I am not an expert in this, I'll just mention Hyman Minsky and Thomas Piketty. The OP is essentially a (white collar) labor version of this. What is evidently…

Yeah, that's why we haven't created any new goods since we embraced capitalism—the whole thing is just parasitic on the labor of the masses, and doesn't really add anything.

Seriously, you might want to actually do a sniff check before taking Marx's word for anything.

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#28

I’m guilty of this. I’m trying to be more mindful when using LLM-generated code. It’s mostly a personal issue: I tend to procrastinate and hope the code “just works.” We need to stay vigilant,otherwise we will pay the cost by fixing LLM bugs later.

First time ive ever heard someone admit this, only ever heard people accuse theur coworkers of it. This is honestly a very sad thing to hear a professional dev say

Sorry, I will try to be better.

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#29
post #27
post #11

So, Karl Marx predicted that the capitalism will eat itself because capitalists will value creating money itself (and money-making enterprises, such as asset bubbles) more than the actual production of goods. This was later elaborated by many people, but since I am not an expert in this, I'll just mention Hyman Minsky and Thomas Piketty. The OP is essentially a (white collar) labor version of this. What is evidently…

Yeah, that's why we haven't created any new goods since we embraced capitalism—the whole thing is just parasitic on the labor of the masses, and doesn't really add anything. Seriously, you might want to actually do a sniff check before taking Marx's word for anything.

Speaking of sniff checks, you might want to do that first, because that's not actually the prediction that Marx was making.

In my understanding, Marx was actually appreciative of free market building stuff. The question he asked was this: If the workers pay for the goods produced with increasingly bigger share of private property of capitalist class, what happens once there is no more property to give away to capitalists? (And he was actually the first to ask this question, and treat capitalism as a dynamical system, which makes him into one of the greatest economists of all time.)

Of course, it didn't fail completely, for two reasons. One is people actually instituted social democratic and keynesian reforms that prevented the collapse. (Marx was an optimist in that people will learn and eventually reject capital ownership completely, but they didn't.)

The other reason is that we continuously invent new forms capital (private property) to inject into flailing capitalism. In other words, we find more and more public goods that can be privatized - things such as mortgages and other consumer debt, intellectual property, new financial instruments, health care insurance, private and behavioral personal information ("big data"), new forms of money such as Bitcoin, openly available information sucked up by generative AI etc.

But that doesn't mean capitalism (especially its financial arm) isn't parasitic - it just didn't manage to kill the host yet.

Re: The fundamentals still matter

#30
post #29
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's why we haven't created any new goods since we embraced capitalism—the whole thing is just parasitic on the labor of the masses, and doesn't really add anything. Seriously, you might want to actually do a sniff check before taking Marx's word for anything.

Speaking of sniff checks, you might want to do that first, because that's not actually the prediction that Marx was making. In my understanding, Marx was actually appreciative of free market building stuff. The question he asked was this: If the workers pay for the goods produced with increasingly bigger share of private property of capitalist class, what happens once there is no more property to give away to capital…

Bollocks.

The first point is nonsensical ("sure, the free market system keeps making new stuff, but what happens when we run out of stuff to pay for it with?"); it's like a bad Yogi Berra pastiche, expecting that we as a society will become so wealthy that we can't afford to do it anymore. He tries to paper over this with a lot of hand-waving about classes, but fundamentally he's trying to use a zero-sum model to explain wealth creation.

If it weren't for this "parasitic" system you wouldn't even have been able to post this drivel, for several dozen reasons, including the fact that you likely would never have been born or would have died in your youth.

Post reply on HN