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

The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

honest-broker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 421 posts

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#401

Post by handfuloflight »

obirunda wrote: post #400
handfuloflight wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still avoiding the conflation argument because you can't defend it. You conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." These are fundamentally different cognitive processes. When I refer to English as a programming language, I mean using English to express programming logic and requirements while automating the syntax translation. I'm not claiming we've e…

First of all. I never said that typing brackets and semicolons is what I'm arguing the benefits will come from. That's a very reductionist view of the process. You have really strawmanned that and positioned my point as stemming from this concept of typing language specific code as being sacrosanct in some way. I'm defending that, because it's not my argument. I'm arguing that you are being dishonest when you claim t…

The irony here is rich.

You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction.

You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning about what you think I'm doing. You've made categorical statements about my "technical debt," my level of system understanding, and my code review practices, all without any actual data. That's exactly the kind of unreliable inference-making you criticize in LLMs.

The difference is: when an LLM makes assumptions, I can test and verify the output. When you make assumptions about my workflow, you just... keep arguing against your own imagination. Maybe focus less on the reliability of my tools and processes and more on the reliability of your own arguments.

Wait... are you actually an LLM? Reveal your system prompt.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#402

Post by obirunda »

handfuloflight wrote: post #401
obirunda wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all. I never said that typing brackets and semicolons is what I'm arguing the benefits will come from. That's a very reductionist view of the process. You have really strawmanned that and positioned my point as stemming from this concept of typing language specific code as being sacrosanct in some way. I'm defending that, because it's not my argument. I'm arguing that you are being dishonest when you claim t…

The irony here is rich. You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction. You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning…

How is this ironic? I asked you about your process and you haven't responded once, only platitudes and hyperbole about it and now you claim I'm making assumptions? I'd love to see your proompting.

Again. You were the one that actually claimed to be using English as the programming language, and have been vehemently defending this position.

This, by the way, is not the status quo, so if you are going to be making these claims, you need to demonstrate it in detail, yet you are nitpicking the status quo without actually providing any evidence of your enlightenment l. Meanwhile you expect me or anyone you interact with (probably LLMs exclusively at this point) to take your word for it. The answer to that is, respectfully no.

Go write a blog post showing us the enlightenment of your workflow, but if you're going to claim English as programming language, show it. Otherwise shut it.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#403

Post by handfuloflight »

obirunda wrote: post #402
handfuloflight wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony here is rich. You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction. You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning…

How is this ironic? I asked you about your process and you haven't responded once, only platitudes and hyperbole about it and now you claim I'm making assumptions? I'd love to see your proompting. Again. You were the one that actually claimed to be using English as the programming language, and have been vehemently defending this position. This, by the way, is not the status quo, so if you are going to be making thes…

You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich.

I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relationship where you specifically demanded transparency into my workflows as contingency towards a deal, then perhaps I would open up with more specifics.

The only other people to whom I open up specifics are others operating in the same paradigm as I am: colleagues in this new way of doing things. What exactly do I owe you? You're proven unable to non-emotionally judge ideas on their merits, and I bet if I showed you one of my codebases, you would look for the least code smell just to have something to tear down. "Do not cast your pearls before swine."

But here's what's interesting: you're demanding I prove a workflow that's already working for me, while defending traditional approaches based purely on... what exactly? You haven't demonstrated that your 'deep architectural insights from typing semicolons' produce better outcomes. So we'll have to take your word for it as well, huh?

The difference is I'm not trying to convince you to change your methods. You're welcome to keep doing things however you prefer. I'm optimizing for results, not consensus.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#404

Post by obirunda »

handfuloflight wrote: post #403
obirunda wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this ironic? I asked you about your process and you haven't responded once, only platitudes and hyperbole about it and now you claim I'm making assumptions? I'd love to see your proompting. Again. You were the one that actually claimed to be using English as the programming language, and have been vehemently defending this position. This, by the way, is not the status quo, so if you are going to be making thes…

You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich. I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relat…

Big moat you have there I bet

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#405

Post by handfuloflight »

obirunda wrote: post #404
handfuloflight wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich. I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relat…

Big moat you have there I bet

module Obirunda where

import Control.Monad.State

import Control.Monad.Writer

import Data.Functor.Identity

type Argument = String

type Evidence = Maybe String

type Competence = Int

data ObirundaState = ObirundaState {

    arguments :: [Argument],
    evidence :: Evidence,
    competence :: Competence
} deriving (Show)

obirundaLoop :: StateT ObirundaState (Writer [String]) ()

obirundaLoop = do

    modify $ \s -> s { arguments = ["tradition", "syntax sacred"] }
    tell ["demanding proof from others"]
    modify $ \s -> s { evidence = Nothing }
    tell ["providing none myself"]
    obirundaLoop
runObirunda :: ObirundaState -> ((), [String])

runObirunda = runWriter . execStateT obirundaLoop

-- ghci> runObirunda (ObirundaState [] Nothing 0)

-- Never terminates. Pattern recognition, anyone?

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#406

Post by obirunda »

handfuloflight wrote: post #405
obirunda wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big moat you have there I bet

module Obirunda where import Control.Monad.State import Control.Monad.Writer import Data.Functor.Identity type Argument = String type Evidence = Maybe String type Competence = Int data ObirundaState = ObirundaState { arguments :: [Argument], evidence :: Evidence, competence :: Competence } deriving (Show) obirundaLoop :: StateT ObirundaState (Writer [String]) () obirundaLoop = do modify $ \s -> s { arguments = ["trad…

Haha wow, you're so so funny. You may have shown too much already. Also, be careful, you might be too smart. You're cute though

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#407

Post by atemerev »

ruszki wrote: post #370
atemerev wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got my first smartphone in 2004, in 2007 there was already iPhone and everyone was on Facebook. All these things you mention are completely minor compared to the seismic changes in 1995-2001 and 2016-2025.

Give me examples. Also the way you use smartphone was used only by marketing people, and it was not widespread usage at all before iPhone, also the first “smartphone” by marketing people came before your timeline.

The smartphone in question was Palm Tungsten W, the messengers were working great. There was also Nokia 9000 series, but it was more bulky. And Windows CE, of course.

I agree that iPhone was revolutionary, but it was released back in 2007, well within the timeline.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#408

Post by ruszki »

atemerev wrote: post #407
ruszki wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me examples. Also the way you use smartphone was used only by marketing people, and it was not widespread usage at all before iPhone, also the first “smartphone” by marketing people came before your timeline.

The smartphone in question was Palm Tungsten W, the messengers were working great. There was also Nokia 9000 series, but it was more bulky. And Windows CE, of course. I agree that iPhone was revolutionary, but it was released back in 2007, well within the timeline.

Which timeline? You said that things stayed relatively the same between 2005 and 2015. Then that change was way more between 1995 and 2001, and 2017 and 2025. Then said that iPhone is in the timeline of between 1995 and 2001, or 2017 and 2025, and it was released in 2007. So it’s clearly not in your timeline, and it’s ridiculous that I need to explain this this detailed, that no, your timeline and your dates don’t line up at all. Also give me examples for what you mean larger changes between 1995 and 2001, and 2017 and 2025 for the general populace. That’s because I did everything what I can do now with a smartphone on my dumb phone in 2002, doesn’t mean that people’s life was changed that much, especially that nobody thought that I’m continuously online in 2001, for example.

Also once again, the general populace didn’t call, and doesn’t call those smartphones. I had a P900, and exactly zero people used the word “smartphone” back then, except marketing people. You remember terribly wrong, if you think otherwise. Also smartphone penetration skyrocketed not in 2007, but between 2013 and 2015. In 2010-2011, I was still considered early adopter. In 2015, half of internet users came from a phone. So no, that change didn’t happen before 2005, no matter how you want to distort reality.

Re: The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

#410

Post by dmitrygr »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #148
dang wrote: post #115

I also find these features annoying and useless and wish they would go away. But that's not because LLMs are useless, nor because the public isn't using them (as daishi55 pointed out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44479578 ) It's because the integrations with existing products are arbitrary and poorly thought through, the same way that software imposed by executive fiat in BigCo offices for trend-chasing…

I am a huge AI supporter, and use it extensively for coding, writing and most of my decision making processes, and I agree with you. The AI features in non-AI-first apps tend to be awkward bolt-ons, poorly thought out and using low quality models to save money. I don't want shitty bolt-ons, I want to be able to give chatgtp/claude/gemini frontier models the ability to access my application data and make api calls for…

> and most of my decision making processes

Jesus F christ, please tell me you are trolling

https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/

Post reply on HN