Live data from Hacker News

Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

fly.io

211–220 of 283 posts

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#211
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks amazing! I keep loving Phoenix more the more I use it. I was curious what the pricing for this is? Is it normal fly pricing for an instance, and is there any AI cost or environment cost? And can it do multiple projects on different domains?

It’s $20 per month if you click through, and I haven’t tried it but almost certainly the normal hosting costs will be added on top.

I've tried it, the $20 of included credits lasted me about 45 minutes

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#212

Phoenix creator here. I'm happy to answer any questions about this! Also worth noting that phoenix.new is a global Elixir cluster that spans the planet. If you sign up in Australia, you get an IDE and agent placed in Sydney.

The Phoenix.new environment includes a headless Chrome browser that our agent knows how to drive. Prompt it to add a front-end feature to your application, and it won’t just sketch the code out and make sure it compiles and lints. It’ll pull the app up itself and poke at the UI, simultaneously looking at the page content, JavaScript state, and server-side logs. Is it possible to get that headless Chrome browser + age…

When Roo Code uses Claude, it does this while developing. It renders in the sidebar and you can watch it navigate around. Incredibly slow, but that’s only a matter of time.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read up on the Jevons Paradox

> In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological advancements make a resource more efficient to use (thereby reducing the amount needed for a single application); however, as the cost of using the resource drops, if the price is highly elastic, this results in overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise. Governments have typically expected ef…

The coal miner would have to pivot to being someone who knows a lot about coal instead of someone that actually obtained it, they’d become more of a coal-advisor to the person making decisions about what type of or how much coal to get/what’s even possible with the coal they’re getting.

The future I’m seeing with AI is one where software (i.e. as a way to get hardware to do stuff) is basically a non-issue. The example I wanna work on soon is telling Siri I want my iPhone to work as a touchpad for my computer and have the necessary drivers for that to happen be built automatically because that’s a reasonable thing I could expect my hardware to do. That’s the sort of thing that seems pretty achievable by AI in a couple turns that would take a single dev a year or two. And the thing is, I can’t imagine a software dev that doesn’t have some set of skills that are still applicable in this future, either through general CS skills (knowing what’s within reasonable expectations of hardware, being able to effectively describe more specific behavior/choosing the right abstractions etc) or other more nebulous technical knowledge (e.g. what you want to do with hardware in the first place).

Another thing I will mention is that for things like the iPhone example from earlier, there are usually a lot of optimizations or decisions involved that are derived from the user’s experience as a human which the LLM can’t really use synthetically. As another example if I turned my phone into a second monitor the LLM might generate code that sends full resolution images to the phone when the phone’s screen is much lower, there’s no real point for it to optimize that away if it doesn’t know how eyes work and what screens are used for. So at some point it needs to involve a model of a human, at least for examples like these.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never going to happen. More efficiency and automation won’t lead to more free time and money for the masses, it will lead to fewer people employed, and those that are will be working the same hours for the same money but outputting more. Only the rich people will benefit. In the long term. In the short term, we get to do the same work but faster.

Indeed, why would an employer pay us a high salary to sit by the pool? The benefits will go to the founders/investors and the customers. They'll benefit greatly from the increased output and lower costs, but the middlemen (SWEs) will be cut out. That's a great thing if you're a founder/investor or a customer, but not if you're the middleman. New opportunities may come around, but I don't think that's inevitable. It r…

It will not be easier for founders/investor either. If couple prompts is all it takes to build your product, your potential customers will write those prompts themselves instead of buying your product.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#215
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological advancements make a resource more efficient to use (thereby reducing the amount needed for a single application); however, as the cost of using the resource drops, if the price is highly elastic, this results in overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise. Governments have typically expected ef…

The coal miner would have to pivot to being someone who knows a lot about coal instead of someone that actually obtained it, they’d become more of a coal-advisor to the person making decisions about what type of or how much coal to get/what’s even possible with the coal they’re getting. The future I’m seeing with AI is one where software (i.e. as a way to get hardware to do stuff) is basically a non-issue. The exampl…

> The coal miner would have to pivot to being someone who knows a lot about coal instead of someone that actually obtained it, they’d become more of a coal-advisor to the person making decisions about what type of or how much coal to get/what’s even possible with the coal they’re getting.

I definitely agree that there will be some jobs/roles like that, and it won't be 100% destruction of SWEs (and many other gigs that will be affected), but I can't imagine that more than a small percentage of consultants will be needed. The top 10% of engineers I think will be just fine for the reasons you've said, but at the lower levels it will be a blood bath (and realistically maybe it should as there are plenty of SWEs that probably shouldn't be writing code that matters, but that feels like a separate discussion). Your point about other skills/knowledge is good too, though I suspect most white collar jobs are on the chopping block too, just maybe shortly behind.

Your future is one that I'm dreaming about too (although I have a hard time believing Apple would allow you to do that, but on Android or some future 3rd option it might be possible). Especially as a Linux user there have been plenty of times I've thought of cool stuff that I'd love to have personally that would take me months of work to build (time I've accepted I'll never have until my kids are all out of the house at least haha). I'm also dreaming of a day when I can just ask the AI to produce more seasons of Star Trek TOS, Have Gun - Will Travel, The Lieutenant, and many other great shows that I'm hungry for more, and have it crank them out. That future would be incredible!

But that feels like the smooth side of the sword, and avoiding a deep cut from the sharp side feels increasingly important. Hopefully it will solve itself but seeing the impacts so far I'm getting worried.

I appreciate the discussion and optimism! There is too much AI doomerism out there and the upsides (like you've mentioned) don't get talked about enough I think.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, why would an employer pay us a high salary to sit by the pool? The benefits will go to the founders/investors and the customers. They'll benefit greatly from the increased output and lower costs, but the middlemen (SWEs) will be cut out. That's a great thing if you're a founder/investor or a customer, but not if you're the middleman. New opportunities may come around, but I don't think that's inevitable. It r…

It will not be easier for founders/investor either. If couple prompts is all it takes to build your product, your potential customers will write those prompts themselves instead of buying your product.

Hot damn, that's a great point! Although I fully expect the models at some point to say stuff like, "I'm sorry I can't generate a because that would violate Apple's/Google's/Whatever IP" and then have them enforce it with the power of government (copyright/patent/regulation/etc). There's also lots of industries where compliance requirements create a moat that might be difficult to get past, though that's probably just a short/medium-term problem.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#217
post #144

Technically this is really. Practically I don’t understand the point. Who is the target demographic? People that don’t have a local dev environment?

It's not really about the remote IDE. It's about an integrated environment where the agent can do everything it needs (install OS packages, inspect the code, view the app via a browser etc) in order to build what you want. It could end up being the place you 'start' an app, before exporting it and fleshing out the features locally.

So the primary benefit over any other AI agent IDEs is it has access to a browser?

Ya I really am not the target demographic for this since I don't use AI agents in my IDE anyway.

It does seem to perfectly fit fly.io in the sense that I also don't care about "edge" apps.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#218

Phoenix creator here. I'm happy to answer any questions about this! Also worth noting that phoenix.new is a global Elixir cluster that spans the planet. If you sign up in Australia, you get an IDE and agent placed in Sydney.

Is there a transparent way to see credit used/remaining/topped up, and do you have any tips for how you can prompt the agent that might offer more effective use of credits?

The LLM chat taps out but I can't find a remaining balance on the fly.io dashboard to gauge how I'm using it. I _can_ see a total value of purchased top ups, but I'm not clear how much credit was included in the subscription.

It's very addictive (because it is awesome!) but I've topped up a couple of times now on a small project. The amount of work I can get out the agent per top-up does seem to be diminishing quite quickly, presumably as the context size increases.

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This last few weeks I've been going hard on LLMs to put together a new prototype project. I've exclusively been using Claude Sonnet 3.7 within Zed (via github copilot) and it' fantastic. From time to time it tries to do something a little old-school, but nothing significant really. It's very capable at spitting out entire new features, even in liveview. Over all the experience has very productive, and at least on-par…

Assuming you are on the $20 Zed plan? Has the 500 prompts/mo been sufficient for you? I'm debating between the Zed and Claude $20 plans-- no doubt I'd get better value from Zed's?

I have used Zed's plane with Claude and also Claude Code. They are very different experiences. Zed's agent work is very much a set it, go away, review, give some tips to it, iterate. As long as you use the Sonnet and absolutely avoid the burn mode (formerly max mode), it should do a lot of work for you. The main limitation I hit is the context window. As the codebase gets larger, it takes more context for it to get going and then it tends to have a hard time finishing. I find that about 4 prompts works for a feature that would take me a few hours to code.

For Claude Code, the limit is reset every 5 hours so if you hit it, you rest a bit. Not that big a deal to me. But the way it works I find much more stressful. It is reviewing just about everything it is doing. It is step-by-step. Some of it you can just say Yes, do it without permission, but it likes to run shell commands and for obvious reasons arbitrary shell commands need your explicit Yes for each run. This is probably a great flow if you want a lot of control in what it is doing. And the ability to intercede and redirect it is great. But if you want more of a "I just want to get the result and minimize my time and effort" then Zed is probably better for that.

I am also experimenting with OpenAI's codex which is yet a different experience. There it runs on repos and pull requests. I have no idea what their rate/limit stuff will be. I have just started working with it.

Of the three, disregarding cost, I like Zed's experience the best. I also think they are the most transparent. Just make sure never to use the burn mode. That really burns through the credits very quickly for no real discernible reason. But I think it is also limited to either small codebases or prompts that limit what the agent is going through to get up to speed due to the context window being about 120k (it is not 200k as the view seems to suggest).

Re: Phoenix.new – Remote AI Runtime for Phoenix

#220
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coal miner would have to pivot to being someone who knows a lot about coal instead of someone that actually obtained it, they’d become more of a coal-advisor to the person making decisions about what type of or how much coal to get/what’s even possible with the coal they’re getting. The future I’m seeing with AI is one where software (i.e. as a way to get hardware to do stuff) is basically a non-issue. The exampl…

> The coal miner would have to pivot to being someone who knows a lot about coal instead of someone that actually obtained it, they’d become more of a coal-advisor to the person making decisions about what type of or how much coal to get/what’s even possible with the coal they’re getting. I definitely agree that there will be some jobs/roles like that, and it won't be 100% destruction of SWEs (and many other gigs tha…

Computers are not special. They are just a heat engine like everything else. We feed them concentrated energy that they dissipate to do work. They do work on data: we give it data (some of it is called code) and it gives us back data. It's all about the information content, how does that data communicate something and relate to the world?

"Training" is just upfront work. Why on Earth people expect to get from the machine that processes data some novel information that did not exist before?

This whole fantasy hinges on not understand the sheer amount of data these LLMs are being trained on, and some magical thinking about it producing some novel information ex nihilo somehow. I will never understand how intelligent people fall into this patterns of thought.

We can only get from computers what we put into them.

Post reply on HN