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

Using LLMs at Oxide

rfd.shared.oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 284 posts

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#231

Post by MobiusHorizons »

000ooo000 wrote: post #21

>Wherever LLM-generated code is used, it becomes the responsibility of the engineer. As part of this process of taking responsibility, self-review becomes essential: LLM-generated code should not be reviewed by others if the responsible engineer has not themselves reviewed it By this own article's standards, now there are 2 authors who don't understand what they've produced.

This is exactly what the advice is trying to mitigate. At least as I see it, the responsible engineer (meaning author, not some quality of the engineer) needs to understand the intent of the code they will produce. Then if using an llm, they must take full owners of that code by carefully reviewing it or molding it until it reflects their intent. If at the end of this the “responsible” engineer does not understand the code the advice has not been followed.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#232

Post by MobiusHorizons »

cvcderringer wrote: post #193

I had trouble getting past the Early Modern English tinge of the language used in this. It’s fun, but it distracts from the comprehension in attempt to just sound epic. It’s fine if you’re writing literature, but it comes off sounding uppity in a practical doc for devs. Writing is not just about conveying something in a mood you wish to set. Study how Richard Feynman and Warren Buffett communicated to their audiences…

What do you mean? The document seemed incredibly digestible to me.

Are you speaking about words like “shall”? I didn’t notice them, but In RFCs those are technical terms which carry precise meaning.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#233

Post by NKjNkaka »

Jaygles wrote: post #79
ryandrake wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that your step 6 takes the vast majority of the time I spend programming with LLMs. Like 10X+ the combined total of time steps 1-5 take. And that's if the code the LLM produced actually works . If it doesn't work (which happens quite often), then even more handholding and corrections are needed. It's really a grind. I'm still not sure whether I am net saving time using these tools. I always wonder about th…

I exclusively use the autocomplete in cursor. I hate reviewing huge chunks of llm code at one time. With the autocomplete, I’m in full control of the larger design and am able to quickly review each piece of llm code. Very often it generates what I was going to type myself. Anything that involves math or complicated conditions I take extra time on. I feel I’m getting code written 2 to 3 times faster this way while ma…

This is my preferred way as well. And when you think about it, it makes sense. With advanced autocomplete you are:

1. Keeping the context very small 2. Keeping the scope of the output very small

With the added benefit of keeping you in the flow state (and in my experience making it more enjoyable).

To anyone that even hates LLMs give autocomplete a shot (with a keying to toggle it if it annoys you, sometimes it’s awful). It’s really no different than typing it manually wrt quality etc, so the speed up isn’t huge, but it feels a lot nicer.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#234

Post by MobiusHorizons »

peheje wrote: post #172

I know I'm walking into a den of wolves here and will probably get buried in downvotes, but I have to disagree with the idea that using LLMs for writing breaks some social contract. If you hand me a financial report, I expect you used Excel or a calculator. I don't feel cheated that you didn't do long division by hand to prove your understanding. Writing is no different. The value isn't in how much you sweated while…

The point made in the article was about social contract, not about efficacy. Basically if you use an llm in such a way that the reader detects the style, you lose the trust of the reader that you as the author rigorously understand what has been written, and the reader loses the incentive pay attention easily.

I would extend the argument further to say it applies to lots of human generated content as well. Especially sales and marketing information which similarly elicit very low trust.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#235

Post by bgwalter »

crabmusket wrote: post #71
bgwalter wrote: post #32

Cantrill jumps on every bandwagon. When he assisted in cancelling a Node developer (not a native English speaker) over pronouns he was following the Zeitgeist, now "Broadly speaking, LLM use is encouraged at Oxide." He is a long way from Sun.

For those interested, here's a take from Bryan after that incident https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2013/11/30/the-power-of-a-prono...

Also for those interested, here is Bryan's take on criticism of Sun:

https://landley.net/history/mirror/linux/kissedagirl.html

He wasn't fired or canceled. It is great to see Gen-Xers and Boomers having all the fun in the 1980s and 1990s and then going all prissy on younger people in the 2010s and trying to ruin their careers.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#236

Post by dcre »

cvcderringer wrote: post #193

I had trouble getting past the Early Modern English tinge of the language used in this. It’s fun, but it distracts from the comprehension in attempt to just sound epic. It’s fine if you’re writing literature, but it comes off sounding uppity in a practical doc for devs. Writing is not just about conveying something in a mood you wish to set. Study how Richard Feynman and Warren Buffett communicated to their audiences…

Feynman at the 1965 Nobel banquet: “Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.”

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/feynman/speec...

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#237

Post by vegardx »

adastra22 wrote: post #162
Madmallard wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't see how output being public domain makes sense when they could be outputting copyrighted code. Shouldn't the right's extend forward and simply require the LLM code to be deleted?

With many asterix and footnotes. One of which being that if it literally output the exact code, of course that would be copyright infringement. Something that greatly resembled but with minor changes would be a gray area. Those kinds of cases, although they do happen, are exceptional. In a typical output that doesn't not line-for-line resemble a single training input, it is considered a new, but non-copyrightable wor…

(I'm not a lawyer)

You should be careful about speaking in absolute terms when talking about copyright.

There is nothing that prevents multiple people from owning copyright to identical works. This is also why copyright infringement is such a mess to litigate.

I'd also be interested in knowing why you think code generated by LLMs can't be copyrighted. That's quite a statement.

There's also the problem with copyright law and different jurisdictions.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#238

Post by bccdee »

the_af wrote: post #66
bccdee wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, LLMs usually use em-dashes correctly, whereas I think this document misuses them more often than not. For example: > This can be extraordinarily powerful for summarizing documents — or of answering more specific questions of a large document like a datasheet or specification. That dash shouldn't be there. That's not a parenthetical clause, that's an element in a list separated by "or." You can just remove…

I don't know whether that use of the em-dash is grammatically correct, but I've seen enough native English writers use it like that. One example is Philip K Dick.

Perhaps you have—or perhaps you've seen this construction instead, where (despite also using "or") the phrase on the other side of the dash is properly parenthetical and has its own subject.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#239

Post by senbrow »

pmg101 wrote: post #177
mulmboy wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do these look like?

1. Take every single function, even private ones. 2. Mock every argument and collaborator. 3. Call the function. 4. Assert the mocks were called in the expected way. These tests help you find inadvertent changes, yes, but they also create constant noise about changes you intend.

These tests also break encapsulation in many cases because they're not testing the interface contract, they're testing the implementation.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#240

Post by xondono »

petetnt wrote: post #202

Funny how the article states that "LLMs can be excellent editors" and then the post repeats all the mistakes that no editor would make: 1. Because reading posts like this 2. Is actually frustrating as hell 3. When everything gets dragged around and filled with useless anecdotes and 3 adjective mumbojumbos and endless emdashes — because somehow it's better than actually just writing something up. Which just means that…

Funnily enough, the text is so distinctively Cantrillian that I have no doubts this is 100% an “organic intelligence” product.
Post reply on HN