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

AI coding is gambling

notes.visaint.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 471 posts

Re: AI coding is gambling

#201

Post by munk-a »

orsorna wrote: post #143
bluefirebrand wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane, because I literally haven't written a line of code myself in months This is exactly the sort of mentality that makes me hate this technology You finally feel good at programming despite admitting that you aren't actually doing it Please explain why anyone should take this seriously?

Well for one, programming actually sucks. Punching cards sucks. Copywriting sucks. Why? Well, implementation for the sake of implementation is nothing more than self-gratifying, and sole focus on it is an academic pursuit. The classic debate of which programming language is better is an argument of the best way to translate human ideas of logic into something that works . Sure programming is fun but I don't want to d…

> Well for one, programming actually sucks. Punching cards sucks. Copywriting sucks.

There's a significant difference between past software advancements and this one. When we previously reduced the manual work when developing software it was empowering the language we were defining our logic within so that each statement from a developer covered more conceptual ground and fewer statements were required to solve our problems. This meant that software was composed of fewer and more significant statements that individually carried more weight.

The LLM revolution has actually increased code bloat at the level humans are (probably, get to that in a moment) meant to interact with it. It is harder to comprehend code written today than code written in 2019 and that's an extremely dangerous direction to move in. To that earlier marker - it may be that we're thinking about code wrong now and that software, as we're meant to read it, exists at the prompt level. Maybe we shouldn't read or test the actual output but instead read and test the prompts used to generate that output - that'd be more in line with previous software advancements and it would present an astounding leap forward in clarity. My concern with that line of thinking is that LLMs (at least the ones we're using right now for software dev) are intentionally non-deterministic so a prompt evaluated multiple times won't resolve to the same output. If we pushed in this direction for deterministic prompt evaluation then I think we could really achieve a new safe level of programming - but that doesn't seem to be anyone's goal - and if we don't push in that direction then prompts are a way to efficiently generate large amounts of unmaintained, mysterious and untested software that won't cause problems immediately... but absolutely does cause problems in a year or two when we need to revise the logic.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#202

Post by Retr0id »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #156
Retr0id wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poker is a skill-based game where your actions influence your success, but many people who play it are gambling.

Poker has elements of both luck and skill. The luck element + wagering money is what makes it gambling.

On a long enough timeframe, the luck averages out.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#203

Post by Terr_ »

interestpiqued wrote: post #200
Terr_ wrote: post #36

I'd emphasize that prompting LLMs to generate code isn't just metaphorical gambling in the sense of "taking a risk", the scary part is the more-literal gambling involving addictive behaviors and how those affect the way the user interacts with the machine and the world. Heck, this technology also offers a parasocial relationship at the same time! Plopping tokens into a slot-machine which also projects a holographic "…

I think AI literally makes even being wrong feel like getting something done. And that is the addictive part for people.

[dead]

Re: AI coding is gambling

#204

Post by munk-a »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #162
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the programming is and was always a means to an end. No. Programming is a specific act (writing code), and that act is also a means to an end. But getting to the goal does not mean you did programming. Saying "I'm good at programming" when you are just using LLMs to generate code for you is like saying "I'm good at driving" when you only ever take an Uber and don't ever drive yourself. It's complete nonsens…

I guess I agree with you, but I think the GP may have mispoke and meant he loves building software. It's sort of like the difference between knitting and making clothes. The GP likely loves making clothes on an abstract basis and realized that he won't have to knit anymore to do so. And he really never liked knitting in the first place, as it was just a means to an end.

Most people who are knitting do it purely for the experience of knitting. If you need clothes it's far more affordable to buy the cheap manufactured stuff. Some people certainly enjoy the creativity of expression and wish they could get to that easier - but most of those people have moved away from manual tasks like knitting and instead just draw or render their imagination. There's genuine value in making things by hand as the process allows us time to study our goal and shape our technique mid-approach. GP may legitimately like knitting more than making clothes.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#205

Post by kraemahz »

est31 wrote: post #150
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (in theory) have more control over the quality of the team you are managing, than the quality of the models you are using. And the quality of code models puts out is, in general, well below the average output of a professional developer. It is however much faster, which makes the gambling loop feel better. Buying and holding a stock for a few months doesn't feel the same as playing a slot machine.

You have a lot of control over LLM quality. There is different models available. Even with different effort settings of those models you have different outcomes. E.g. look at the "SWE-Bench Pro (public)" heading in this page: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/ , showing reasoning efforts from none to high. Of course, they don't learn like humans so you can't do the trick of hiring someone less senior but w…

You also have control over the workflow they follow and the standards you expect them to stick through, through multiple layers of context. Expecting a model to understand your workflow and standards without doing the effort of writing them down is like expecting a new hire to know them without any onboarding. Allowing bad AI code into your production pipeline is a skill issue.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#206

Post by [deleted] »

m00x wrote: post #127
watzon wrote: post #110

I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…

AI coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses.

[deleted]

Re: AI coding is gambling

#207

Post by input_sh »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #139
m00x wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses.

Only if your AI coding approach is the slot machine approach. I've ended up with a process that produces very, very high quality outputs. Often needing little to no correct from me. I think of it like an Age of Empires map. If you go into battle surrounded by undiscovered parts of the map, you're in for a rude surprise. Winning a battle means having clarity on both the battle itself and risks next to the battle.

Until it produces predictable output, it's gambling. But it can't produce predictable output because it's a non-deterministic tool.

What you're describing is increasing your odds while gambling, not that it's not gambling. Card counting also increases your odds while gambling, but it doesn't make it not gambling.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#208

Post by supern0va »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #173
itsgrimetime wrote: post #92

All of this new capability has made me realize that the reason i love programming _isn't_ the same as the OP. I used to think (and tell others) that I loved understanding something deeply, wading through the details to figure out a tough problem. but actually, being able to will anything I can think of into existence is what I love about programming. I do feel for the people who were able to make careers out of falli…

> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane Yes, it is insane. You couldn't torture this confession out of me. But that's the drug they're selling you, isn't it? You don't even write code, but you're getting a self-inflated sense of worth. It must be addicting! Of course, whether or not the programs you prompt are actually good surely has no relation to whether you feel they're good, since yo…

>Anyone can be an "ideas guy".

I think there's way more nuance to this than you're willing to admit here. There's a significant difference between the guy who thinks "I'm going to make X app to do Y and get loaded." and the person who really understands the details of what they want to create and has a concrete vision of how to shape it.

I think that product shaping and detail oriented vision of how something should work and be used by people is genuinely challenging, wholly aside from the lower level technical skills required to execute it.

This is part of the reason why I wouldn't be surprised at all to see product manager types getting more hands-on, or seeing the software engineering profession evolve into more of a PM/SDE hybrid.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#209

Post by DrJokepu »

tossandthrow wrote: post #184
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (in theory) have more control over the quality of the team you are managing, than the quality of the models you are using. And the quality of code models puts out is, in general, well below the average output of a professional developer. It is however much faster, which makes the gambling loop feel better. Buying and holding a stock for a few months doesn't feel the same as playing a slot machine.

What theory is that? My experience is the absolute opposite. I am much more in control of quality with Ai agents. I am never letting junior to midlevels into my team again. In fact, I am not sure I will allow any form of manual programming in a year or so.

Eh. You want a good mix of experience levels, what really matters is everyone should be talented. Less experienced colleagues are unburdened by yesterday’s lessons that may no longer be relevant today, they don’t have the same blind spots.

Also, our profession is doomed if we won’t give less experienced colleagues a chance to shine.

Post reply on HN