Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

businessinsider.com

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti. The problem is finding people to do it with who care enough to think rigorously about what they're going to do before they start doing it. There's this bizarre misconception popular among bigtech managers that there's some tunable tradeoff bet…

> The problem is finding people to do it with who care enough to think rigorously > ... > train them, and reject low quality work. I agree very strongly with both of these points. But I've observed a truth about each of them over the last decade-plus of building software. 1) very few people approach the field of software engineering with anything remotely resembling rigor, and 2) there is often little incentive to tr…

> 1) very few people approach the field of software engineering with anything remotely resembling rigor

This is a huge problem. I don't know where it comes from, I think maybe sort of learned helplessness? Like, if systems are so complex that you don't believe a single person can understand it then why bother trying anyway? I think it's possible to inspire people to not accept not understanding. That motivation to figure out what's actually happening and how things actually work is the carrot. The stick is thorough, critical (but kind and fair) code--and, crucially, design--review, and demanding things be re-done when they're not up to par. I've been extremely lucky in my career to have had senior engineers apply both of these tools excellently in my general direction.

> 2) there is often little incentive to train juniors and reject subpar output (move fast and break things, etc.)

One problem is our current (well, for years now) corporate culture is this kind of gig-adjacent-economy where you're only expected to stick around for a few years at most and therefore in order to be worth your comp package you need to be productive on your first day. Companies even advertise this as a good thing "you'll push code to prod on your first day!" It reminds me of those scammy books from when I was a kid in the late 90s "Learn C In 10 Days!".

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is naive but I think search would probably work again if they could roll back code to 10 or 15 years ago and just make search engines look for text in webpages. Google wasn’t crushed by spam, they decided to stop doing text search and build search bubbles that are user specific, location-specific, decided to surface pages that mention search terms in metadata instead of in text users might read, etc. Oh yeah…

> Maybe it is naive but I think search would probably work again if they could roll back code to 10 or 15 years ago and just make search engines look for text in webpages. Even more naive, but my personal preference: just ban all advertising. The fact that people will pay for ChatGPT implies people will also pay for good search if the free alternative goes away.

It's working for Kagi

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow This bothers me. I completely understand the conversational aspect - "what approach might work for this?", "how could we reduce the crud in this function?" - it worked a lot for me last year when I tried learning C. But the vast majority of AI use that I see is...not that. It's just glorified, very expensive search. We are willing to burn far, far more fuel t…

What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti. The problem is finding people to do it with who care enough to think rigorously about what they're going to do before they start doing it. There's this bizarre misconception popular among bigtech managers that there's some tunable tradeoff bet…

> What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti. The problem is finding people to do it with who care enough to think rigorously about what they're going to do before they start doing it.

I don't think finding such programmers is really difficult. What is difficult is finding such people if you expect them to be docile to incompetent managers and other incompetent people involved in the project who, for example, got their position not by merit and competence, but by playing political games.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we've decided we can't be bothered with traditional search Traditional search (at least on the web) is dying. The entire edifice is drowning under a rapidly rising tide of spam and scam sites. No one, including Google, knows what to do about it so we're punting on the whole project and hoping AI will swoop in like deus ex machina and save the day.

Google results are not polluted with spam because Google doesn't know how to deal with it. Google results are polluted with spam because it is more profitable for Google. This is a conscious decision they made five years ago.

If you own the largest ad network that spam sites use and own the traffic firehose, pointing the hose at the spam sites and ensuring people spend more time clicking multiple results that point to ad-filled sites will make you more money.

Google not only has multiple monopolies, but a cut and dry perverse incentive to produce lower quality results to make the whole session longer instead of short and effective.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What I can't wrap my head around is that making good, efficient software doesn't (by and large) take significantly longer than making bloated, inefficient enterprise spaghetti." In my opinion the reason we get enterprise spaghetti is largely due to requirement issues and scope creep. It's nearly impossible to create a streamlined system without knowing what it should look like. And once the system gets to a certain…

When scopes creep and requirements change, simply refactor. Where is it written in The Law that you have to accrue technical debt? EDIT: I'm gonna double down on this one. The fact that your organization thinks they can demand of you that you can magically weathervane your codebase to their changeable whims is evidence that you have failed to realistically communicate to them what is actually possible to do well . Th…

> Fight viciously for engineering independence.

Or simply find a position in an industry or department where you commonly have more independence. In my opinion this fight is not worth it - look for another position instead is typically easier.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#436
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a stupid future. Machines which make errors being “corrected” by machines which make errors in a death spiral. An unbelievable waste of figurative and literal energy. Humans are machines which make errors. Somehow, we got to the moon. The suggestion that errors just mindlessly compound and that there is no way around it, is what's stupid.

> Humans are machines Even if we accept the premise (seeing humans as machines is literally dehumanising and a favourite argument of those who exploit them), not all machines are created equal. Would you use a bicycle to fill your taxes? > Somehow, we got to the moon Quite hand wavey. We didn’t get to the Moon by reading a bunch of text from the era then probabilistically joining word fragments, passing that around t…

LLMs are a lot better at a lot of things than a lot of humans.

We got to the moon using a large number of systems to a) avoid errors where possible and b) build in redundancies. Even an LLM knows this and knew what the statement meant:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e04f-0230-8002-8345-5d2eba2e7d...

Putting "corrected" in quotes and saying "death spiral" implies error compounding.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e19c-7f44-8002-8614-a560620b37...

These LLMs seem so smart.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#437
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are machines Even if we accept the premise (seeing humans as machines is literally dehumanising and a favourite argument of those who exploit them), not all machines are created equal. Would you use a bicycle to fill your taxes? > Somehow, we got to the moon Quite hand wavey. We didn’t get to the Moon by reading a bunch of text from the era then probabilistically joining word fragments, passing that around t…

LLMs are a lot better at a lot of things than a lot of humans. We got to the moon using a large number of systems to a) avoid errors where possible and b) build in redundancies. Even an LLM knows this and knew what the statement meant: https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e04f-0230-8002-8345-5d2eba2e7d... Putting "corrected" in quotes and saying "death spiral" implies error compounding. https://chatgpt.com/share/6722e19c-7f…

> LLMs are a lot better at a lot of things than a lot of humans.

Sure, I'm really poor painter, Midjourney is better than me. Are they better than a human trained for that task, on that task? That's the real question.

And I reckon the answer is currently no.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#439

Sometimes I wonder why we would want LLMs spit out human readable code. Wouldn’t be a better future where LLMs generate highly efficient machine code and eventually we read the “source map” for debugging? Wasn’t source code just for humans?

You just reinvented the compiler.

Re: Google CEO says more than a quarter of the company's new code is created by AI

#440
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that when we humans learn from our errors, we learn how to make them less often. LLMs get their errors fed back into them and become more confident that their wrong code is right. I'm not saying that's completely unsolvable, but that does seem to be how it works today.

That isn't the way they work today. LLMs can easily find errors in outputs they themselves just produced. Start adding different prompts, different models and you get all kinds of ways to catch errors. Just like humans.

> LLMs can easily find errors in outputs they themselves just produced.

No. LLMs can be told that there was an error and produce an alternative answer.

In fact LLMs can be told there was an error when there wasn't one and produce an alternative answer.

Post reply on HN