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

Grief and the AI split

blog.lmorchard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–404 of 404 posts

Re: Grief and the AI split

#401

Post by tovej »

FabianCarbonara wrote: post #399
tovej wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these ingenious projects then, pray tell?

Have a look at my blog! Is linked in my profile :)

you have three entries, none of them seem to be about a specific project, all of them seem to be about ways of setting up agentic development. I'm not going to comb them for crumbs.

Surely you can just tell me: what is, in your opinion, the best project to showcase what AI coding methods can achieve? Preferrably a project that is polished enough that it can actually be applied somewhere.

I never get answers when I ask _what_ people actually build using AI. Please tell me.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#403

Post by Doxin »

wiseowise wrote: post #221
wiml wrote: post #114

I think the article misunderstands completely. "Craft" coders are chasing results too — we're just chasing results that last and that can be built upon. I've been in this game for a while, and a major goal of every single good programmer I've known has been to make themselves obsolete. Yes, I enjoyed meticulous hand crafted assembly, counting cycles and packing bits, but nobody had to talk me into using compilers. Ye…

> and a major goal of every single good programmer I've known has been to make themselves obsolete. I’ve always heard this mantra when coders were thinking they’re untouchable, not so much now.

I don't think any programmer wants to be obsolete, but the only alternative to aiming for it is to write bad code.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#404

Post by g-b-r »

wiseowise wrote: post #238
g-b-r wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way Claude can help improve your code cleanliness is if you write poor code? No? You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer? > Code coverage means nothing if you didn't carefully check every test? "and if everything was tested" do you know what code coverage is? Do you know? Code coverage only tells what amount of the code gets *touched* by the tests. To achieve code coverage…

> You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer? Absolutely. It contains a lot, if not majority, of all the code available at our hands right now and can reason, whatever it means for LLMs to reason anyway, about it. It absolutely demolishes average software developer and it’s not even close. > To achieve code coverage it's enough to CALL the code, it doesn't tell you anything about the co…

You seem to have a pretty big misunderstanding of LLMs.

> > So, yes, if you don't carefully check the test suite that the agent writes, it might well be worthless (or simply much less useful than you assume it to be, more realistically).

> That’s like saying that if you don’t check every line your coworker writes it becomes worthless

A coworker is (supposedly) a *competent person*, placing some trust on that is not stupid.

You'd usually want to have a review of everything everyone does, but even if you don't do it, a reasonably competent and honest developer is never going to be as misleading as LLMs can be.

Furthermore, in traditional development, even without code reviews you will look at the test suite every once and then (or rather, always, when you touch the code that it tests).

Post reply on HN