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

Everyone in Seattle hates AI

jonready.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#351

Post by agumonkey »

CSMastermind wrote: post #223
pkasting wrote: post #40

Ex-Google here; there are many people both current and past-Google that feel the same way as the composite coworker in the linked post. I haven't escaped this mindset myself. I'm convinced there are a small number of places where LLMs make truly effective tools (see: generation of "must be plausible, need not be accurate" data, e.g. concept art or crowd animations in movies), a large number of places where LLMs make…

My friends at Google are some of the most negative about the potential of AI to improve software development. I was always surprised by this and assumed internally at Google would be one of the first places to adopt these.

so would love to be a fly in there office and hear all their convos

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#352

Post by handstitched »

senordevnyc wrote: post #244
averyvery wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, "Engineers don't try" is a frustrating statement. We've all tried generative AI, and there's not that much to it — you put text in, you get text back out. Some models are better at some tasks, some tools are better at finding the right text and connecting it to the right actions, some tools provide a better wrapper around the text-generation process. Certain jobs are very easy for AI to do, others are impossibl…

I’ve been an engineer for 20 years, for myself, small companies, and big tech, and now working for my own saas company. There are many valid critiques of AI, but “there’s not much there” isn’t one of them. To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job, which is using technology to solve problems. Maybe AI…

> To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job, which is using technology to solve problems.

I would argue that the "actual job" is simply to solve problems. The client / customer ultimately do not care what technology you use. Hell, they don't really care if there's technology at all.

And a lot of software engineers have found that using an LLM doesn't actually help solve problems, or the problems it does solve are offset by the new problems it creates.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#353

Post by antonvs »

bccdee wrote: post #41

> Engineers don't try because they think they can't. This article assumes that AI is the centre of the universe, failing to understand that that assumption is exactly what's causing the attitude they're pointing to. There's a dichotomy in the software world between real products (which have customers and use cases and make money by giving people things they need) and hype products (which exist to get investors excite…

> often companies with real products will mix in tidbits of hype

The wealthiest person in the world relies entirely on his ability to convince people to accept hype that surpasses all reason.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#354

Post by kizer »

In my opinion, the issue in AI is similar to the issue in self driving cars. I think the last “five percent” of functionality for agents etc. will be much, much more difficult to nail down for production use, just like snow weather and strange roads proved to be much more difficult for self-driving car technology rollout. They got to 95% and assumed they were nearing completion but it turned out there was even more work to be done to get to 100%. That’s kind of my take on all the AI hype. It’s going to take a lot more work to get the final five percent done.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#355

Post by rr808 »

sulicat wrote: post #134
hectdev wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the latest tech holy war. Tabs vs Spaces but more existential. I'm usually anti hype and I've been convinced of AI's use over and over when it comes to coding. And whenever I talk about it, I see that I come across as an evangelist. Some people appreciate that, online I get a lot of push back despite having tangible examples of how it has been useful.

I'm probably one of the people that would say AI (at least LLMs) isn't all its cracked up to be and even I have examples where it has been useful to me. I think the feeling stems from the exaggeration of the value it provides combined with a large number of internal corporate LLMs being absolute trash. The overvaluation is seen in effect everywhere from the stock market, the price of RAM, the cost of energy as well a…

Lol you made me think my power bill has gone up but I didn't get a pay rise for my increased productivity.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#356

Post by LogicFailsMe »

The thing about dismissing AI in 2025 is that it's on par with dismissing the wearable computing group at MIT in the 1980s.

But admittedly, if one had tried to productize their stuff in the 1980s it would have been hilarious. So the rewards here are going to go to the people who read the right tea leaves and follow the right path to what's inevitable.

In the short term, a lot of not so smart, people are going to lose a lot of money believing some of the ludicrous short-term claims. But when has that not been the case?

This is not the right time of year to pitch in Seattle. The days are short and the people are cranky. But if they want to keep hating on AI as a technology because of Microsoft and Amazon, let them, and build your AI technology somewhere else. San Francisco thinks the AGI is coming any day now so it all balances out, no?

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#357

Post by jacquesm »

bccdee wrote: post #41

> Engineers don't try because they think they can't. This article assumes that AI is the centre of the universe, failing to understand that that assumption is exactly what's causing the attitude they're pointing to. There's a dichotomy in the software world between real products (which have customers and use cases and make money by giving people things they need) and hype products (which exist to get investors excite…

> But moving toward one pole moves you away from the other.

My assumption detector twigged at that line. I think this is just replacing the dichotomy with a continuum between two states. But the hype proponents always hope - and in some cases they are right - that those two poles overlap. People make and lose fortunes on placing those bets and you don't necessarily have to be right or wrong in an absolute sense, just long enough that someone else will take over your load and hopefully at a higher valuation.

Engineers are not usually the ones placing the bets, which is why they're trying to stay away from hype driven tech (to them it is neutral with respect to the outcome but in case of a failure they lose their job, so better to work on things that are not hyped, it is simply safer). But as soon as engineers are placing bets they are just as irrational as every other class of investor.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#358

Post by awesome_dude »

senordevnyc wrote: post #244
averyvery wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, "Engineers don't try" is a frustrating statement. We've all tried generative AI, and there's not that much to it — you put text in, you get text back out. Some models are better at some tasks, some tools are better at finding the right text and connecting it to the right actions, some tools provide a better wrapper around the text-generation process. Certain jobs are very easy for AI to do, others are impossibl…

I’ve been an engineer for 20 years, for myself, small companies, and big tech, and now working for my own saas company. There are many valid critiques of AI, but “there’s not much there” isn’t one of them. To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job, which is using technology to solve problems. Maybe AI…

I mean, this is the other extreme to the post being replied to (either you think it's useless and walk away, or you're failing at your job for not using it)

I personally use it, I find it helpful at times, but I also find that it gets in my way, so much so it can be a hindrance (think losing a day or so because it's taken a wrong turn and you have to undo everything)

FTR The market is currently punishing people that DO use it (CVs are routinely being dumped at the merest hint of AI being used in its construction/presentation, interviewers dumping anyone that they think is using AI for "help", code reviewers dumping any take home assignments that have even COMMENTS massaged by AI)

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#359

Post by zzzeek »

blibble wrote: post #299
senordevnyc wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last few years has revealed the extent to which HN is packed with middle-aged, conservative engineers who are letting their fear and anxiety drive their engineering decisions. It’s sad, I always thought of my fellow engineers as more open-minded.

> The last few years has revealed the extent to which HN is packed with middle-aged, conservative engineers who are letting their fear and anxiety drive their engineering decisions. so, people with experience?

ive been programming for more than 40 years

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#360

Post by senordevnyc »

blibble wrote: post #299
senordevnyc wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last few years has revealed the extent to which HN is packed with middle-aged, conservative engineers who are letting their fear and anxiety drive their engineering decisions. It’s sad, I always thought of my fellow engineers as more open-minded.

> The last few years has revealed the extent to which HN is packed with middle-aged, conservative engineers who are letting their fear and anxiety drive their engineering decisions. so, people with experience?

Obviously. Turns out experience can be self-limiting in the face of paradigm-shifting innovation.

In hindsight it makes sense, I’m sure every major shift has played out the same way.

Post reply on HN