Live data from Hacker News

The Last Programmers?

xipu.li

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: The Last Programmers?

#41
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how much progress has been made in the last 2-5 years. I can understand skepticism but not the HA HA HAs

When there's something new and shiny progress is made fast until we reach the inevitable ceiling. AI has unsolved issues. The bubble will eventually pop and the damages will be astounding. I will sign the HA HA HAs. People are delusional.

Could you describe in what way do you find the current paradigms "new" or what unsolved issues you're talking about?

Re: The Last Programmers?

#42
post #8

I liked the author's chocolate analogy although not in the way they intended. Yes it's a known reproducible tech and yes Hershey dominates there. Hershey is also the worst crap you can buy for the money.

In a way the author is right. AI apps will be like hersheys - uninspiring junk. Personally I don’t eat hersheys. If I need chocolate I have good Swiss or Belgian brands that are much better.

Coming back to software - I believe the author is correct. We will be able to standardize prompts that can create secure deployments and performant applications. We will have agents that can monitor these and deal with 95% of the issues that happen. The other 5% I have no clue. Most of what industry does today needs standarized architecture based on specs anyway. Human innovation via resume driven design generally overcomplicates things.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#43
> We're the last generation of people who translate ideas into code by hand. Our children will describe what they want and watch it appear on screen, the same way we describe what we want to search engines and watch results appear.

Describing what you want is programming! Code is great for that because it is more precise and less ambiguous than natural languages.

The part about search engines is missing a key element. When you do a search engine search or query a LLM, you interact with the system, using your own brain to interpret and refine the results. The idea with programming is having the machine do it all by itself with no supervision, that's why you need to be extra precise.

It is not so different from having a tradesman build you something. If you have a good idea of what you want and don't want to supervise him constantly, you have to be really precise with your request, casual language is not enough. You need technical terms and blueprints, in the same way that programmers have their programming language.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#44
> These are people who believe deeply that understanding code at a fundamental level is non-negotiable. They can spot inefficient algorithms, they know why certain design patterns exist, they understand the underlying systems well enough to debug problems that AI tools can't handle.

What about the people who just want to have a pretty good idea of what the actual code is doing? Like, at a highish level, such as "reading some Typescript and understanding roughly how React/Redux will execute it." Not assembly, not algorithms development, but just nuts and bolts "how does data flow through this system." AI is great at making a good stab at common cases, but if you never sit down and poke through the actual code you are at best divining from shadows on the cave wall (yes it's shadows all the way down, but AI is so leaky that it can't really be considered an abstraction).

Just the other day I had GPT 4o spit out extremely plausible looking SQL that "faked" the join condition because two tables didn't have a simple foreign key relationship, so it wrote out

    select * from table_a 
    JOIN
    table_b ON table_b.name = 'foo'
Perfectly legal SQL that is quietly doing something that was entirely nonsensical. Nobody would intentionally write a JOIN... ON clause like this, and in context an outer join made no sense at all, but buried in several CTEs it took a nonzero amount of time to spot.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#46
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha-has are perhaps tonally inappropriate, but when you look at the facts it seems unlikely. What we've seen in the last few years is fairly unlikely to continue forever. That's rarely how trends go. If anything if we actually look at the trend lines the improvements between model generations are becoming smaller, and the models are getting larger and more expensive to train. A perhaps bigger concern is how flimsy the…

> Unless we have another miraculous breakthrough I guess the argument of AI optimists is that these breakthroughs are likely to happen given the recent history. Deep learning was rediscovered like, what, 15 years ago? "Attention is all you need" is 8 years old. So it's easy to assume that something is boiling deep down that will show impressive results 5-10 years down the line.

Scientific breakthroughs happen, but they're notoriously difficult to make happen on command or on a schedule. Taking them for granted or as inevitable seems quite detached from reality.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#47
post #2

> They'll judge us the way we judge people who manually calculated ledgers before spreadsheets existed. Impressive dedication to craft, but ultimately unnecessary effort spent on problems that got solved by better tools. One of my dad's anecdotes was of someone who was very proud of the fact that they could multiply numbers with a slide rule faster than any of the then-newfangled electronic hand calculators. A lot of…

We are not at that point. There is a lot to improve in terms of contrxt and specialization.

I really think AI is tremendously over-hyped and AGI is just selling and making money for the people who believe it is even possible.

These tools are probabilistic parrots and the proof is that when you give them something for which not much documentation exist they start to hallucinate a lot.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#48
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless we have another miraculous breakthrough I guess the argument of AI optimists is that these breakthroughs are likely to happen given the recent history. Deep learning was rediscovered like, what, 15 years ago? "Attention is all you need" is 8 years old. So it's easy to assume that something is boiling deep down that will show impressive results 5-10 years down the line.

Scientific breakthroughs happen, but they're notoriously difficult to make happen on command or on a schedule. Taking them for granted or as inevitable seems quite detached from reality.

True, but given how many breakthroughs we had in AI recently, for text, sound, images and video the odds of new breakthroughs happening are probably higher than otherwise.

We have no idea how many of them we need till AGI or at least replacing software engineers though.

Re: The Last Programmers?

#49
post #3

FTA: "But with billions of dollars pouring into generative AI every year, we will see instant voice-to-code capabilities + bug-free quality in 2-5 years." HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA omg, thanks for the laugh - "bug-free quality in 2-5 years" pfffffft I'm not holding my breath - rather, I think that by then, the hype will have finally lost some steam as companies crash and burn with their shitty, "almost work…

I tend to agree. Unless there is some kind of major breakthrough, I see a heavy asymptotic curve in generative AI code quality

Re: The Last Programmers?

#50
I‘d really like to watch those 4 claude windows at once 100x developers in action.

For me, claude creates plenty of bugs and hallucinations with just one.

Anything besides extremely simple things or extremely overprompted commands comes out 100% broken and wrong.

Post reply on HN