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

The human-in-the-loop is tired

pydantic.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#211

Post by anthonypasq »

ryandrake wrote: post #195
BrandonM wrote: post #96

> But the bottleneck was never the code. It was always the human attention, the engineering judgment, the ability to hold a coherent vision for a system. We just didn't notice because writing code felt like the hard part. I keep wondering what I’m missing in the AI enthusiasm, and maybe this is a big part of it? Writing code has never felt like the hard part to me. In my 20s, I was excited about using a computer. AIM…

Someone in a HN thread a few months ago put it in a way that makes a lot of sense to me: "AI seems good at things you are not good at." So, if you're not actually a programmer, or not a good programmer, you look at AI output and think "Wow, I could never have done that so well/fast. AI is great at this!" It's solving something he's not good at. On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is no…

this is pure cope, and the realm of things you are better than it at will continue to shrink, and you need to be mentally and economically prepared for this.

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#212

Post by Henchman21 »

dspillett wrote: post #147
hdjrudni wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusingly, when I know my peer is just going to point his AI at my feedback, I write for their AI, not for them. I'm much more curt. Maybe not so amusing but I don't feel bad about dumping a laundry list of fixes for them.

> Amusingly, when I know my peer is just going to point his AI at my feedback, I write for their AI, not for them. At this point, why not just talk directly to the AI? Asking as someone who is likely leaving dev, and maybe tech completely, very soon, possibly to go wait tables, as he hates everything about the way things have gone in the last half decade or more with remote work, stupid levels of unnecessary complica…

Thanks for this, I feel slightly less alone in my feelings towards tech these days.

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#213

Post by tripleee »

AyanamiKaine wrote: post #144
thinkindie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they find it useful. It means that the time I spent working on that helped other people solving a problem (hopefully). That’s why a was always keen on cutting some corners when and where necessary in order to think about the user first and the code beauty second. Of c…

It seems to be a big fight between the I am interested in the end result and I am interested in the process. Some people think the same regarding art, they dont see art in the process only in the end result. I believe no one is right, but also no one is wrong.

Employees are rewarded by the process

Employers/owners are rewarded by the end result

It's obvious why employees using an LLM would get burnt out

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#214

Post by killix »

zem wrote: post #3

unlike the op, I've been having a wonderful time using claude, both at work and for my own personal projects, so I will share what has worked for me, just in case it resonates with anyone else. my anecdotal advice is to avoid the entire "agent" temptation, and treat the LLM as a code generator. have a single session running at a time. come up with a plan, iterate on it until you are satisfied, then tell it to execute…

[flagged]

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#215

Post by bluefirebrand »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #71
bluefirebrand wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single worker that has been laid off due to "increased AI productivity" is working less As a broad historical trend? Maybe not But fewer people working, right now? Absolutely

> Every single worker that has been laid off due to "increased AI productivity" is working less This isn't a useful definition of working less in the thread context and is not the kind of working less that I meant. If it helps, imagine that I had asked for "when increased productivity translated to workers personally reaping the benefits of the increased productivity by being able to thrive while doing less instead o…

Yeah. Sorry. This is just a personal gripe of mine. It rubs me the wrong way when people use "work less" as a shorthand for "workers getting a benefit"

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#216

Post by edanm »

ryandrake wrote: post #195
BrandonM wrote: post #96

> But the bottleneck was never the code. It was always the human attention, the engineering judgment, the ability to hold a coherent vision for a system. We just didn't notice because writing code felt like the hard part. I keep wondering what I’m missing in the AI enthusiasm, and maybe this is a big part of it? Writing code has never felt like the hard part to me. In my 20s, I was excited about using a computer. AIM…

Someone in a HN thread a few months ago put it in a way that makes a lot of sense to me: "AI seems good at things you are not good at." So, if you're not actually a programmer, or not a good programmer, you look at AI output and think "Wow, I could never have done that so well/fast. AI is great at this!" It's solving something he's not good at. On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is no…

> On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is not solving anything for you. Its output is flawed and has to be manually fixed and refactored. When you consider the prompting and the waiting and the cajoling and the fixing and the refactoring, it's not really doing things faster than you could.

This seems to not coincide with the reality of some very skilled programmers saying exactly the opposite.

Just to quote the latest one, here's Linus Torvalds, who I think we can agree is a good programmer:

> AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one.

> It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today.

> There are other questions around AI (like what the economy of it will actually look like in the end), but "is it useful" is no longer one of those questions. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it.

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#217

Post by oguzkaanmavice »

eugmai86 wrote: post #209

Part of the fatigue comes from agents explaining everything in prose. When important operations happen through constrained tools, the human can review structured inputs, results and logs instead of reconstructing the entire conversation. Fatigue comes when doing same things many times day by day. What we did in our team - created MCP server that does most of routine operations automatically for us. We explicitly stat…

[flagged]

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#218

Post by vinodc »

hahahaa wrote: post #4
N_Lens wrote: post #2

While I appreciate and agree with the key points of the post, Claude's writing style fingerprints are all over it and I guess it's even more exhausting to read someone's AI written article.

I don't think it is AI, but I bet it has been through editing/review to match a corporate style. LLMs were trained on this.

It's certainly AI. There are a ton of phrases that Claude loves to use: genuinely, trap, staccato phrases. continuous reframing, the list goes on.

I find it very tiresome and repetitive and simply too grating to read at this point, after already working with Claude all day.

Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired

#219

Post by iso1631 »

customguy wrote: post #193
iso1631 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is true for a lot of people. It's also true for the people paying my salary. If you're making a plane, crashing 1 in 1000 times is terrible, if you're making some administrative thing which if it crashes costs 5 minutes work then it's likely fine But you're still implying that the fancy software crafted by hand is better. I have handmade crafted products and I have assembly line products. Not only are the latt…

> If you're making a plane, crashing 1 in 1000 times is terrible, if you're making some administrative thing which if it crashes costs 5 minutes work then it's likely fine Yes, and if it doesn't crash it's better than fine. Objectively. > I have handmade crafted products and I have assembly line products. Not only are the latter cheaper and more consistent, they're often better. Completely ignoring the care and work…

You're making an assumption that

1) spending more time handcrafting the code makes it less likely to crash

2) That the cost of the crash is more than the cost of the artisinal crafting

Post reply on HN