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

Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

kadekillary.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 253 posts

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#241

Post by godelski »

QuantumGood wrote: post #25
godelski wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A constant reminder: you can't have wizards without having noobs. Every wizard was once a noob. No one is born that way, they were forged. It's in everybody's interest to train them. If they leave, you still benefit from the other companies who trained them, making the cost equal. Though if they leave, there's probably better ways to make them stay that you haven't considered (e.g. have you considered not paying new…

I think too many see it more as "every stem cell has the potential to be any [something]", but it's generally better to let them self differentiate until survivors with more potential exist.

Be careful there... There are destructive steady state solutions. For example, all your cells can become cancerous. The stem cells are shaped by their environments, just like people. Don't just approach things with a laissez faire attitude. Flexibility is good, and an overly heavy hand is bad, but that doesn't mean a subtle hand is bad

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#242

Post by JohnMakin »

WD-42 wrote: post #237
pegasus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Even just hypertext is more expressive than plain text. So is JSON, or any other data format or programming language which has a string type for that matter.

Those are all still text.

Yes, structured text is a subset of text. That doesn't negate the point made.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#243

Post by WorldMaker »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #218
fennecfoxy wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but I don't bother with a unified system, just a mermaid diagram. I work in web though, so perhaps if I went back to embedded (which I did only a short while) or something else when a project is planned in it entirety rather than growing organically/reacting to customers needs/trends/the whims of management.

I just looked at Mermaid and it seems to as close to UML as I meant by my previous comment. Just look at this class diagram [1]: triangle-ended arrows for parent/child, the classic UML class box of name/attributes/methods, stereotypes in >, etc. The text even mentions UML. I'm not a JS dev so tend to use PlantUML instead - which is also UML based, as the name implies. I'm not sure what you mean by "unified system". I…

The "unified" UML system is referring to things like Rose (also mentioned indirectly several more comments up) where they'd reflect into code and auto-build diagrams and also auto-build/auto-update code from diagrams.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#244

Post by WorldMaker »

bretpiatt wrote: post #133
mountainriver wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What??? It’s literally the worst interface Do you not want to edit your code after it’s generated?

I'm running terminal in one window with AI interaction and then VS Code with project on same directories so I can see via color coding updated or new files to review in the IDE. How do you interact with your projects?

How is that better than running your AI interaction in a dedicated toolpane/subwindow directly inside your IDE?

The Chat panel in VS Code has seen a lot of polish, can display full HTML including formatting Markdown nicely, has some fancy displays for AI context such as file links, supports hyperlinks everywhere, and has fancy auto-complete popups for things like @ and # and / mentioned "tools"/"agents"/whatever. Other VS Code widgets can show up in the Chat panel, too. The Chat Panel you can dock in either sidebar and/or float as its own window.

A terminal can do most of those things too, with effort and with nothing quite like the native experience of your IDE and its widgets. It seems like a lesser experience than what VS Code already offers, other than you only have one real choice for AI assistant that supports VS Code's Chat panel (though you still have model choice).

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#245

Post by TeMPOraL »

WD-42 wrote: post #219
TeMPOraL wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mistake was going after programmers, instead of going after programming languages , where the actual problem is. UML may be ugly and in need of streamlining, but the idea of building software by creating and manipulating artifacts at the same conceptual level we are thinking at any given moment, is sound. Alas, we've long ago hit a wall in how much cross-cutting complexity we can stuff into the same piece of plai…

I’ve heard this many times before but I’ve never heard an argument that rebukes the plain fact that text is extremely expressive, and basically anything else we try to replace it with less so. And it happens that making a von Neumann machine do precisely what you want requires a high level of precision. Happy to understand otherwise!

The text alone isn't the problem. It's the sum of:

1) Plaintext representation, that is

2) a single source of truth,

3) which we always work on directly.

We're hitting hard against limits of 1), but that's because we insist on 2) and 3).

Limits of plaintext stop being a problem if we relax either 2) or 3). We need to be able to operate on the same underlying code ("single source of truth") indirectly through task-specific view, that hide the irrelevant and emphasize the important for the task at hand, which is something that typically changes multiple times a day, sometimes multiple times an hour, for each programmer. The views/perspectives themselves can be plaintext or not, depending on what makes most sense; the underlying "single source of truth" does not have to be, because you're not supposed to be looking at it in the first place (beyond exceptional situations, similar to when you'd be looking at the object code produced by the compiler).

Expressiveness is a feature, but the more you try to express in fixed space, the harder it becomes to comprehend it. The solution is to stop trying to express everything all at once!

N.b. makes me think of a recent exchange I had on HN; people point out that code is like a blueprint in civil engineering/construction - but then, in those fields there is never a single common blueprint being worked on. You have different documents for overall structure, different for material composition, hydrological studies, load analysis, plumbing, HVAC, electrical routing, etc. etd. Multiple perspectives on the same artifacts. You don't see them merge all that into a single "uber blueprint", which would be the equivalent of how software engineers work with code.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#246

Post by ozim »

mjrbrennan wrote: post #99

Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…

Python, a journey that began with an initial commit and evolved through a series of careful refinements to establish a robust foundation for the project..

Wow yeah what a waste. That is exactly the opposite of saving time.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#247

Post by NewsaHackO »

never_inline wrote: post #137
mjrbrennan wrote: post #99

Not trying to be rude here, but that `last_week.md` is horrible to me. I can't imagine having to read that let alone listen to the computer say it to me. It's so much blah blah and fluff that reads like a bad PR piece. I'd much rather scan through commits of the last week. I've found this generally with AI summaries...usually their writing style is terrible, and I feel like I cannot really trust them to get the facts…

Here's a system prompt I tend to use ## Instructions * Be concise * Use simple sentences. But feel free to use technical jargon. * Do NOT overexplain basic concepts. Assume the user is technically proficient. * AVOID flattering, corporate-ish or marketing language. Maintain a neutral viewpoint. * AVOID vague and / or generic claims which may seem correct but are not substantiated by the the context. Cannot completely…

>it's good to avoid AI for text that's used for human-to-human communication.

Assuming it is fact checked, why?

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#248

Post by wpm »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #247
never_inline wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a system prompt I tend to use ## Instructions * Be concise * Use simple sentences. But feel free to use technical jargon. * Do NOT overexplain basic concepts. Assume the user is technically proficient. * AVOID flattering, corporate-ish or marketing language. Maintain a neutral viewpoint. * AVOID vague and / or generic claims which may seem correct but are not substantiated by the the context. Cannot completely…

>it's good to avoid AI for text that's used for human-to-human communication. Assuming it is fact checked, why?

Personally, I find it hard to not be insulted by it. If I put thought into a comment or question or request, I don’t want generated nonsense back.

As I say, keep your slop in your own trough.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#249

Post by eru »

jvanderbot wrote: post #210
eru wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America = world?

Is this meant to say "I don't care because I'm not in USA"? Or "it's not a problem because it's only USA?" Or "don't speak of US-specific situations on this forum because it contains people of many nationalities?" It's entirely possible for a world changing tech to be created and steered to match a unique problem inside one country, and for that to change job markets everywhere.

Speaking of US-specific situations is fine. Or in general, speaking of any specific institutions.

I objected to the '[...] and nobody is financially invested in software from AI anymore.' That's a rather dubious claim of a universal consequence for a change that only affects the US.

If the comment was 'I can't wait until Section 174 changes are repealed and nobody in the US is financially invested in software from AI anymore.' I would have nothing to complain about.

To critique the content more specifically and explicitly, and not just the form: people and companies all around the world have plenty of incentives to invest in AI. A tax change in the US might change the incentives in the US slightly. But it won't have much of an impact on the incentives in Europe, China, etc.

And even in the US, even with that suggested tax change, I doubt it'll lead to 'nobody [in the US being] financially invested in software from AI anymore.'

Basically, the original comment was hyperbole at best and BS at worst.

Re: Snorting the AGI with Claude Code

#250

Post by never_inline »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #247
never_inline wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a system prompt I tend to use ## Instructions * Be concise * Use simple sentences. But feel free to use technical jargon. * Do NOT overexplain basic concepts. Assume the user is technically proficient. * AVOID flattering, corporate-ish or marketing language. Maintain a neutral viewpoint. * AVOID vague and / or generic claims which may seem correct but are not substantiated by the the context. Cannot completely…

>it's good to avoid AI for text that's used for human-to-human communication. Assuming it is fact checked, why?

Why would I?

The only argument is that it improves the style of writing.

But I am in an ESL environment and no one cares about that.

Even otherwise why would anyone want to read a decompressed version instead of the "prompt" itself?

Post reply on HN