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

The Eternal Sloptember

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 389 posts

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#321

Post by bcoughlan »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #170
SCdF wrote: post #141

So currently there are people who are buying grey market peptides[1], marked "not for human consumption" and injecting themselves with them based on dubious anecdotes and vibes, to make their skin clearer, build muscle mass, and so on. Are they are all suddenly turning into zombies? No. Do they have any real idea what that is going to do to their body a few years down the line? Also no. Could it be catastrophic? Mayb…

I think smart developers will be building isolated modules, so if your AI generated module keeps failing, you can amputate it and make a fresh one.

I've been thinking the same: the smaller the codebase, the better AI performs. So a way to scale AI is to modularize your architecture to maximize the number of leaf nodes in the dependency tree, and split out separate libraries where it makes sense.

It is huge for token usage also, Claude grepping the codebase for context it doesn't have is the main consumer of input tokens from what I can see.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#322

Post by Supermancho »

parineum wrote: post #132
bluegatty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a granular level, it's almost guaranteed that you cannot write better code than an agent. Agents now are writing extremely consistent, normalized canonical code, that usually compiles the first time. Right out of the 'textbook'. For what it's trying to do - it writes nearly perfect code. The only thing you could nominally disagree with are some of the conventions and idioms. It 'writes a perfect novel, in perfect…

> the quality of the output is the quality of your guidance I wish you just started with the copout.

How is it a copout? These exercises are making an assumption that developers have been given even more context.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#323

Post by Swizec »

mattlondon wrote: post #241
Swizec wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How are we really supposed to grasp their actual capabilities when no one will actually cite specifically what mistakes they are making. The mistakes they make are pretty subtle. Coding with LLMs can be like that scene in Whiplash – , not quite my tempo, , downbeat on 18, , you’re rushing, , dragging, … Like yeah it produces working code almost always and the code usually does what you asked. And yet it makes you w…

Well again that is just a "vibes" explanation with nothing concrete. I feel like with LLMs, it's like a situation where you are close to some feature or project and have a pretty good idea in your head already of how you'd implement it yourself "I'd do this and have an API with that and a database table foo for storing bar with index on baz" and you're keen to get started on it ...but then someone else gets assigned…

> So long as the code works and meets all stated requirements and is secure and performant and uses good abstractions and is not full of hacks, then it's ok to let go

That is the problem. The code often is full of hacks and bad abstractions. LLMs write code like a junior or mid-level engineer – perfectly overfitted to today’s request. Oh you need to work on this code tomorrow and there’s a laundry list of future requirements? Throw away and rewrite, I guess.

You can most easily see this when you ask LLMs to write tests. They have a tendency to write convoluted tests that absolutely definitely pass. Even when you know the code has a bug, they’ll write the test in a way that fits the code as written and passes. Because they know tests should pass.

Getting an LLM to write a failing test against a currently working function because you know the business requirements have changed is like pulling teeth.

You don’t see writing about this stuff because it doesn’t neatly fit in an article or video (I’ve tried). Plus it goes against the zeitgeist so you’d never get traction (even if people write these posts, we don’t see them)

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#324

Post by andrewflnr »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #133
andrewflnr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish people would stop comparing AI with cryptocurrency. The hype/perception was the only thing that was similar between them. The fundamental usefulness of the respective technologies are not comparable.

One of the reasons it gets compared with crypto is because the same people who were all in on crypto schemes are now all in on AI schemes.

Yeah, that's the hype part. Those people are creatures of hype.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#325

Post by fatata123 »

baq wrote: post #183
athrowaway3z wrote: post #152

This post hits the nail at a bit of an angle. The AI agents are great, and any expert can prompt them correctly to get good code. LLMs occasionally pick wrong patterns and start digging a hole, but this is why an expert is required. The code itself is just not worth writing when a detailed prompt can get you the same code typing 20x less text. Where I agree with the post is: The adoption of AI agents into software en…

‘If it hurts, stop’ vs ‘if it hurts, do more of it’. Organizations have a choice, some slow down to avoid, some speed up in hope to make issues… non-issues. If the go-fast orgs find workflows that actually truly speed things up without loss of quality, it’s like hitting the jackpot - you’ve found a way to run away from competition without them even realizing it’s possible (for a while anyway, until they notice they’r…

[dead]

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#326

Post by seanmcdirmid »

swiftcoder wrote: post #314
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are just invested in an index fund, a lot. If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot. The other side is the stability of your job or job prospects, and we are adversely affected by that instead.

> If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot. The current state of the stock market is not exactly inspiring confidence about stability over the next few years. Number goes up over sufficient timescales, but if we get a Dotcom-level bust when AI investment slows, there may be a ways to climb back to current levels...

You are still financially affected if AI is a bubble set to burst, just as you are if the boom is set to continue.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#327

Post by seanmcdirmid »

t-3 wrote: post #247
torben-friis wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the meaning of “who wears the pants in this house” That's pants as opposed to skirts. It's a gender implication, not a scarcity one.

You're right for the english version, but the Chinese version is IIRC a family that shares one pair of pants - the person who needs to go outside wears the proper clothes.

I was only aware of the Chinese version because my friend explained it to me on my first trip to yunnan in 2002. I always thought the English version descended from the Chinese version, not that they were separate. Oops.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#328

Post by ModernMech »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #275
cafkafk wrote: post #74

I think a lot of the problem with the current discourse is how black-and-white it is. Either you're a luddite or "ai pilled". In most cases, LLMs can get you 80-95% of the way, sometimes less, sometimes more. And heck, sometimes, it just gets you somewhere wrong. But it seems everyone is arguing about whether LLMs can be perfect software engineers in isolation running in a closet, and using that to say that LLMs do n…

The article specifically calls out agents: > the adoption of AI agents into software development will be one of the most costly mistakes in the field’s history I don’t use agents, myself. I use a simple chat interface, and a running dialogue, to build software at a function-building level. The resulting workflow is quite “chimerical,” and benefits greatly from my own experience and expertise. The LLM simply lubricate…

I agree with this. I've tried using agents over the last 2 months, and I feel they are just... bad. I spend more time trying to correct their inexplicable decisions than it takes to just go through step by step in a dialogue.

Re: The Eternal Sloptember

#329

Post by [deleted] »

edg5000 wrote: post #260
petterroea wrote: post #60

I think geohot is somewhat of a clown but I think he is speaking reason here and I'm happy to see voices address this. Most seniors I work with agree.

He did admit that he writes his posts in a slightly baity manner. They are his views, but he likes to make waves for the sake of it. It's a smart tactic; it helps his companies if he stays well-known. It's also just fun to read his inflammatory musings. I'm sure he emjoys writing them to.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN