291–300 of 500 posts
It's feels like a modern twist on a bygone time of the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m curious about how you landed “git gud; prompt better” and not “maybe the domain I work in is a better fit for LLM code”. 1. Personal experience. Lazy prompting vs careful prompting. 2. They're coincidentally good at things I'm good at, and shit at things I don't understand. 3. Following from 2, when used by somebody who does understand a problem space which I do not, they easily succeed. That dog vibe coding ga…
Irrespective of the domain you specifically listed in 3 (game dev is, believe it or not, one of the “more complex” domains), you have completely failed to miss the point. > 2. They're coincidentally good at things I'm good at, and shit at things I don't understand. This may well be! In the perfect world this would be balanced with the knowledge that maybe “the things you’re good at” are objectively* easier than “thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before mass production, the women of the household would be forced to spend every free moment of their day, outside of their other work, making fabric. Before mechanised farming, the men were forced to spend all day in the fields. Never again.
And yet many of us would prefer to be in a field instead of behind a laptop screen all day.
> Video games stand out as one market where consumers have pushed back effectively No, it's simply untrue. Players only object against AI art assets. And only when they're painfully obvious. No one cares about how the code is written. If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well. It's specifically worded like this: > content such as artwork,…
In the meantime the only way to really sort this is to have models that have only been trained on some particular kind of license - there is quite a big corpus of GPL'd code out there so a GPL based model could potentially be one of the first, and of course the output could only be GPL.
What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code. Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzz…
> A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? Because our ways of programming computers are still woefully inadequate and rudimentary. This is why we have a tons of technique for code reuse, yet we keep reinventing the wheel because they shatter in contact with reality. OOP was supposed to save us all in the 1990s, we've seen how it went. In other fields we've had…
The question is, at what point of progress will it benefit the software industry.
I am bit tired of such discussions. I don't care if LLMs are good at coding or bad at it (in my experience the answer is "it depends"). I don't care how good are they at anything else. What matters in the end is that this tech is not to empower a common person (although it could). It is not here to make our lives better, more worthwhile, more satisfying (it could do these as well). It is there to reduce our agency, t…
> What matters in the end is that this tech is not to empower a common person (although it could). How do you figure? 20 dollars/month is insanely cheap for what OpenAI/Anthropic/Google offer. That absolutely qualifies as "empowering a common person". It lowers barriers! A lot of the anti-AI sentiment on HN concerns people losing their jobs. I don't think this will happen: programmers who know what they're doing are…
Block just laid off 40% of their company citing AI.
What the author and many others find hard to digest is that LLMs are surfacing the reality that most of our work is a small bit of novelty against boiler plate redundant code. Most of what we do is programming is some small novel idea at high level and repeatable boilerplate at low level. A fair question is: why hasn’t the boilerplate been automated as libraries or other abstractions? LLMs are especially good at fuzz…
Libraries create boundaries, which are in most cases arbitrary, that then limit the way you can interact with code, creating more boilerplate to get what you want from a library. Abstractions are the source of bloat. Without abstractions you can always reduce bloat, or you can reduce bloat in your glue, but you can't reduce glue. It takes discipline to NOT create arbitrary function signatures and short-lived intermed…
I don’t think I agree. Here is an example.
QTcpSocket socket; socket.connectToHost(QHostAddress::LocalHost, 1234);
Vs:
int clientSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
sockaddr_in serverAddr;
serverAddr.sin_family = AF_INET;
serverAddr.sin_port = htons(1234);
inet_pton(AF_INET, "127.0.0.1", &serverAddr.sin_addr);
connect(clientSocket, (sockaddr*)&serverAddr, sizeof(serverAddr))Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the people doing the most rote and monotonous work were and are doing so in some of the least productive circumstances, with clear ways of increasing speed and productivity. If development velocity was truly an important factor in these businesses, we'd migrated away from that gang of four ass Java 8 codebase, given these poor souls offices, or at least cubicles to reduce the noise, we wouldn't make them spen…
>all the inertia and inefficiencies of the organization Honestly you can probably use this as a means to measure the amount of regulation, graft, and corruption in an economy. In a wild west free for all code velocity would likely be very fast with software popping up, changing rapidly, and some quickly disappearing. But in an economy that doesn't care what you make, then who you pay or what laws you buy is far more…
If the janitors swept the floors 10x faster, we wouldn't see any KPIs to shoot up from that. You still need it to happen regularly and reliably and on demand in case there's a mess, but it doesn't need to be fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not saying the LLM is lying; they're saying the human user is lying by using the counterfeit as though it were the genuine artifact.
I dunno if counterfeit is the right word here, a lab grown diamond is still a diamond.