Live data from Hacker News

Software 3.1? – AI Functions

blog.mikegchambers.com

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#51
post #23

Why stop there? Just call the LLM with the data and function description and get it to return the result! (I'll admit that I've built a few "applications" exploring interaction descriptions with our Design team that do exactly this - but they were design explorations that, in effect, used the LLM to simulate a back-end. Glorious, but not shippable.)

What was the gap you discovered that made it not shippable? This is an experimental project, so I'm curious to know what sorts of problems you ran into when you tried a similar approach.

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#52
post #48

This has big "let's do this because we can" energy. What is the BENEFIT of all this? Let's use Blockchain instead of a database - because we can. Let's create a maze of microservices - because we can. Let's make every function a lambda function - because we can. Let's make AI write code, run it, verify it, fix it, then run it again - because we can. Let's burn untold amounts of energy to do simple things - because we…

To you, what's the point of spending countless billions on space exploration?

Good comp. Working with expensive materials and stuff that can explode while people are inside by necessity forces a greater scrutiny of good vs. bad ideas. You don't get that ideal balance between experimentation and wisdom when anyone can type anything into an editor at no cost.

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#57

This has big "let's do this because we can" energy. What is the BENEFIT of all this? Let's use Blockchain instead of a database - because we can. Let's create a maze of microservices - because we can. Let's make every function a lambda function - because we can. Let's make AI write code, run it, verify it, fix it, then run it again - because we can. Let's burn untold amounts of energy to do simple things - because we…

Because we can? More like because I have equity in a company that sells this stuff.

"Does this mean I won't need to pay a skilled person?"

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#58
A lot of valid concerns against arb code execution in prod for security, performance, auditability etc.

However, I do resonate somewhat with the post if I think about some accounting processes.

Accounting is where I came from, and a lot of data processing we do is mostly determinstic, with some "smartness" or judgement sprinkled in. Take for example bank reconciliation, the basic process is to match bank statement lines with accounting entry lines. In practice, dates, descriptions, and amounts often mismatch between the 2 for various reasons (typos, grouped bookings, value date vs transaction date differences, truncated values). This impacts a lot of SME's and these basic accounting processes are still manual as you need eyeballing. You look at a typical back office excel spreadsheet and will understand this.

You can pre-program the matching rules up to a certain point until it becomes unmaintainable. Or you can use LLM to generate data-dependent matching logic on the fly. I think there is a space for the latter approach, if we keep the scope tight and well contained. As with all engineering, it's about the trade-offs.

Useful targets for LLM to generate can be subsets of sql statements (create views and selects) or pure functions (haskell?), where side effects are strictly limited and there is only data in - data out. I am toying with SQL idea myself (GH: https://github.com/spoj/taskgraph).

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#59
post #48

This has big "let's do this because we can" energy. What is the BENEFIT of all this? Let's use Blockchain instead of a database - because we can. Let's create a maze of microservices - because we can. Let's make every function a lambda function - because we can. Let's make AI write code, run it, verify it, fix it, then run it again - because we can. Let's burn untold amounts of energy to do simple things - because we…

To you, what's the point of spending countless billions on space exploration?

Space exploration needs things to be better. Better propulsors. Better seals. Better materials. Or else the space capsule explodes and people die.

What the article is proposing is making programming worse, for no apparent benefit for anyone except those who sell AI data center cycles.

Re: Software 3.1? – AI Functions

#60
Part of the Strands team here. We hope AI functions will expand the tool belt of programmers. They aren't meant to replace regular Python, but to handle the inherently unpredictable parts of a pipeline that require an agent: parsing unstructured uploads, normalizing messy user input, research tasks, etc.

With AI Functions and post-conditions, we want to make this process more robust, ergonomic and cheaper: you don't always need a frontier model for ambiguous tasks. Smaller/faster agents can do the work if you have robust correctness checks.

On the roadmap: JIT-compiled functions that reuse previously generated code to cut costs, LLM-based backprop for learning/memory/prompt tuning, and strong remote sandboxing for code execution. We're focused on getting the DevX right before shipping these — happy to answer questions.

Post reply on HN