221–230 of 346 posts
Meanwhile, my cofounder is rewriting code we spent millions of salary on in the past by himself in a few weeks. I myself am saving a small fortune on design and photography and getting better results while doing it. If this is not all that well I can’t wait until we get to mediocre!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s well known and also wrong. Delta’s airplanes also require a great deal of maintenance, and I’m sure they strive to have no more than are necessary for their objectives. But if you talk to one of Delta’s accountants, they will be happy to disabuse you of the notion that the planes are entered in the books as a liability.
You're hinting at the underlying problem with the quote. "Asset" in the quote reads, at least to me, in the financial or accounting meaning of the term. "Liability" reads, again to me, in the sense of potential risk rather than the financial meaning. Its apples and oranges.
I don't think it's a wrong quote. Code's behavior is the asset, and code's source is the liability. You want to achieve maximum functionality for minimal source code investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone else said in this thread: > The whole discourse around LLMs is so utterly exhausting. If I say I don't like them for almost any reason, I'm a luddite. If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high. I’m perfectly happy to write code, to use these tools. I do use them, and…
There's no silver bullet. I’m not a researcher, but I’ve done my best to understand how these systems work—through books, video courses, and even taking underpaid hourly work at a company that creates datasets for RLHF. I spent my days fixing bugs step-by-step, writing notes like, “Hmm… this version of the library doesn’t support protocol Y version 4423123423. We need to update it, then refactor the code so we instan…
See my previous comment (quoted below).
> If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high.
Regarding "there are no miracles here"
Here are a few comments from this thread alone,
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46609559 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46610260 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46609800 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46611708
Here's a few from some older threads: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46519851 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46485304
There is a very vocal group who are telling us that there _is_ a silver bullet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not directly comparable. The first time writing the code is always the hardest because you might have to figure out the requirements along the way. When you have the initial system running for a while, doing a second one is easier because all the requirements kinks are figured out. By the way, why does your co-founder have to do the rewrite at all?
I find the opposite to be true. Once you know the problem you’re trying to solve (which admittedly can be the biggest lift), writing the fist cut of the code is fun, and you can design the system and set precedent however you want. Once it’s in the wild, you have to work within the consequences of your initial decisions, including bad ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then what? Am I supposed to be excited about this future?
If machines taking over labor and allowing humans to live a life of plenty instead of slaving away in jobs isn't exciting, then I don't know what is. I guess cynics will yap about capitalism and how this supposedly benefits only the rich. That seems very unimaginative to me.
Does it? How exactly is the common Joe going to benefit from this world where the robots are doing the job he was doing before, as well as everyone else's job (aka, no more jobs for anyone)? Where exactly is the money going to come from to make sure Joe can still buy food? Why on earth would the people in power (aka the psychotic CxOs) care to expend any resources for Joe, once they control the robots that can do everything Joe could? What mechanisms exist for everyone here to prosper, rather than a select few who already own more wealth and power than the majority of the planet combined?
I think believing in this post-scarcity utopian fairy tale is a lot less imaginative and grounded than the opposite scenario, one where the common man gets crushed ruthlessly.
We don't even have to step into any kind of fantasy world to see this is the path we're heading down, in our current timeline as we speak, CEOs are foaming at the mouth to replace as many people as they can with AI. This entire massive AI/LLM bubble we find ourselves in is predicated on the idea that companies can finally get rid of their biggest cost centers, their human workers and their pesky desires like breaks and vacations and worker's rights. And yet, there's still somehow people out there that will readily lap up the bullshit notion that this tech is going to somehow be used as a force of good? That I find completely baffling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Code is a liability. What the code does for you is an asset." as quoted from https://wiki.c2.com/?SoftwareAsLiability with Last edit December 17, 2013. This discussion and distinction used to be well known, but I'm happy to help some people become "one of today's lucky 10,000" as quoted from https://xkcd.com/1053/ because it is indeed much more interesting than the alternative approach.
It’s well known and also wrong. Delta’s airplanes also require a great deal of maintenance, and I’m sure they strive to have no more than are necessary for their objectives. But if you talk to one of Delta’s accountants, they will be happy to disabuse you of the notion that the planes are entered in the books as a liability.
If a software company is going bankrupt, it’s very unlikely they will be able to sell code for individual apps and services they may have written for much at all, even if they might be able to sell the whole company for something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m perfectly happy for my tooling to not be deterministic. I’m not happy for it to make up solutions that don’t exist, and get stuck in loops because of that. I use LLMs, I code with a mix of antigravity and Claude code depending on the task, but I feel like I’m living in a different reality when the code I get out of these tools _regularly just doesn’t work, at all_. And to the parents point, I’m doing something wr…
If it were terrible, you wouldn't use them, right? Isn't the fact that you continue to use AI coding tools a sign that you find them a net positive? Or is it being imposed on you? > And to the parents point, I’m doing something wrong for noticing that? There's nothing wrong pointing out your experience. What the OP was implying was he expects them to be able to copy/paste reliably almost 100% of the time, and not hal…
> he'll never get that with LLMs, and that their inability to do so isn't a barrier to getting productive use out of them.
This is _exactly_ what the comment thread we're in said - and I agree with him. > The whole discourse around LLMs is so utterly exhausting. If I say I don't like them for almost any reason, I'm a luddite. If I complain about their shortcomings, I'm just using it wrong. If I try and use it the "right" way and it still gets extremely basic things wrong, then my expectations are too high.
> If it were terrible, you wouldn't use them, right? Isn't the fact that you continue to use AI coding tools a sign that you find them a net positive? Or is it being imposed on you?
You're putting words in my mouth here - I'm not saying that they're terrible, I'm saying they're way, way, way overhyped, their abilities are overblown, (look at this post and the replies of people saying they're writing 90% of code with claude and using AI tools to review it), but when we challenge that, we're wrong.
> LLMs can still cannot be trusted But can they write grammatically correct statements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Can AI actually do this? This looks like a nice benchmark for complex language processing, since a complete novel takes up a whole lot of context (consider War and Peace or The Count of Monte Cristo) Yes, you just break the book down by chapters or whatever conveniently fits in the context window to produce summaries such that all of the chapter summaries can fit in one context window. You could also do something wi…
> Yes, you just break the book down by chapters or whatever conveniently fits in the context window to produce summaries such that all of the chapter summaries can fit in one context window. I've done that a few month ago and in fact doing just this will miss cross-chapter informations (say something is said in chapter 1, that doesn't appears to be important but reveals itself crucial later on, like "Chekhov's gun").…
Meanwhile, my cofounder is rewriting code we spent millions of salary on in the past by himself in a few weeks. I myself am saving a small fortune on design and photography and getting better results while doing it. If this is not all that well I can’t wait until we get to mediocre!
You and anyone else could have avoided spending millions for programmer salaries, had you been allowed to reuse freely any of the many existing proprietary or open-source programs that solved the same or very similar problems.
I would have no problem with everyone being able to reuse any program, without restrictions, but with these AI programming tools the rich are now permitted to ignore copyrights, while the poor remain constrained by them, as before.
The copyright for programs has caused a huge multiplication of the programming effort for many decades, with everyone rewriting again and again similar programs, in order for their employing company to own the "IP". Now LLMs are exposing what would have happened in an alternative timeline.
The LLMs have the additional advantage of fast and easy searching through a huge database of programs, but this advantage would not have been enough for a significant productivity increase over a competent programmer that would have searched the same database by traditional means, to find reusable code.