481–490 of 544 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Mad Max specifically requires a ridiculous amount of intact infrastructure for all the gasoline (you know gasoline goes bad in 3-6 months? Yeah didn't think so) Is this a joke or do you have a learning disability? >But I expect 24/7 IC3 level engineering as a service for $200/month to be more than enough and I think that's a year or two away. And you can either prepare for that or scream how the sky is falling, your…
I guess you have a really short context buffer with all this frequently forgetting things you've said yourself. But that aside, how's all that self-righteousness working out for you?
10-15 years ago HN was the place where everyone showed off their new shiny toys and people would jump over themselves to try some new framework or db or tool. Now, so much negative sentiment about AI coding. I bet if LLMs came 15 years ago, HN would be brimming with excitement. What happened?
You should be critical. If you made something, you should proof that it works. Especially in todays world. This article contains no proof that their work actually works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain how fragility of implementation, like spaghetti code, high coupling low cohesion fit into your world view?
As human developers, I think we're struggling with "letting go" of the code. The code we write (or agents write) is really just an intermediate representation (IR) of the solution. For instance, GCC will inline functions, unroll loops, and myriad other optimizations that we don't care about (and actually want!). But when we review the ASM that GCC generates we are not concerned with the "spaghetti" and the "high coup…
So long as this is all true, then the code needs to be human readable, even if it's not human-written.
Maybe we'll get to the point that LLMS really are equivalent to compilers in terms of reliability -- but at that point, why would be have them write in Java or other human-readable languages? LLMs would _be_ a compiler at that point, with a natural-language UI, outputing some kind of machine code. Until then, we do need readable code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some people like to be polite? Is it this hard to understand? Your hand-written prompts are unlikely to take significant chunk of context window anyway.
Polite to whom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As human developers, I think we're struggling with "letting go" of the code. The code we write (or agents write) is really just an intermediate representation (IR) of the solution. For instance, GCC will inline functions, unroll loops, and myriad other optimizations that we don't care about (and actually want!). But when we review the ASM that GCC generates we are not concerned with the "spaghetti" and the "high coup…
That may be the future, but we're not there yet. If you're having the LLM write to a high level language, eg java, javascript, python, etc, at some point there will be a bug or other incident that requires a human to read the code to fix it or make a change. Sure, that human will probably use an LLM as part of that, but they'll still need be able to tell what the code is doing, and LLMs simply are not reliable enough…
Codex: runs the code, reproduces the incorrect behavior I described finds the bug, reruns the code and gets the result I told it I expected. It iterates until it gets it right and runs my other unit and integration tests.
This isn’t rocket science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you have a really short context buffer with all this frequently forgetting things you've said yourself. But that aside, how's all that self-righteousness working out for you?
I bet you have ex-Amazon prominently in your LinkedIn profile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you expect it not to be free of bugs because you've run a comprehensive test on it, read all of the code yourself or are you just concluding that because you know it was generated by an LLM?
It has not been formally verified which is essentially the only way to achieve code without defects with reasonable confidence. There are several studies that have found that there are roughly between one and twenty bugs per thousand lines of code in any software, this project has several thousand lines of code, so I would expect several bugs if written by humans and I have no reason to assume that large language mod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t stayed relevant and able to find jobs quickly for 30 years by being the old man shouting at the clouds. I started my career in 1996 programming in C and Fortran on mainframes and got my first only and hopefully last job at BigTech at 46 7 jobs later. I’m no longer there. Every project I’ve had in the last two years has had classic ML and then LLMs integrated into the implementation. I have very much jumped…
Started mine around the same time and yes, keeping up keeps one employed. What's disheartening however is how little keeping up the key decision makers and stakeholders at FAANNG do and it explains idiocy like already trying to fire engineers and replace them with AI. Hilarity ensued of course because hilarity always ensues for people like that, but hilarity and shenanigans appears to be inexhaustible resources.