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

GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 742 posts

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#531

Post by DeathArrow »

thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

I didn't use it but I've seen videos where people used Cline with Claude to modify the source and afterwards, have Cline run the app collect the errors and fix them.

The examples were small and trivial, though. I am not sure how that would work in large and complex code bases.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#532

Post by DeathArrow »

ianbutler wrote: post #311
thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience. I've used AI to move multi thousand line codebases between languages. I've created new apps from scratch with it. My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person. At the end of the day it can belt out lines of code faster than I…

>My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person.

In my experience, baby sitting the AI takes to much time and effort. I'd rather do it myself and use AI for tasks I don't have to babysit.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#533

Post by Idiot211 »

cma wrote: post #42
thenobsta wrote: post #8

I wonder what the rationale for this was internally. More OpenAI issues? competitiveness with Cursor? It seems good for the user to increase competition across LLM providers. Also ambiguous title. I thought GitHub canceled deals they had in the work. The article is clearly about making a deal, but it's unclear from the article's title.

Could be a fight against Llama, which excludes MS and Google in its open license (though I think has done separate pay deals with one or both of them). Meta are notably absent from this announcement.

I was at the keynote, Llama was featured in the Copilot models section and called out specifically, as was Mistral.

I assume they just aren't at the point where they have the ability or want to host the compute to offer up Llama as an option as opposed to OpenAI, Anthropic and Google who are all offering the model as a service.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#534

Post by Myrmornis »

ianbutler wrote: post #311
thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience. I've used AI to move multi thousand line codebases between languages. I've created new apps from scratch with it. My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person. At the end of the day it can belt out lines of code faster than I…

I think it's bimodal because there's a roughly bimodal distribution of high level attitudes among programmers. There's one clump that are willing to be humble and interact with the AI in a thoughtful, careful manner, acknowledging that it might be smarter than them (e.g. see Terry Tao's comments regarding mathematics usage about how in order to get good results he takes care with what he puts in (and imagine what "care" means for a professional mathematician!)) and there's another clump who aren't.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#535

Post by resonious »

thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

I had the same experience with Copilot and stopped using it. Been somewhat tempted to try Cursor thinking maybe it's gotten better but this comment is suggesting that maybe it's not.

I get the best use out of straight up ChatGPT. It's like a cheatsheet for everything.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#536

Post by chrisandchris »

thih9 wrote: post #221

I use cursor and its tab completion; while what it can do is mind blowing, in practice I’m not noticing a productivity boost. I find that ai can help significantly with doing plumbing, but it has no problems with connecting the pipes wrong. I need to double and triple check the updated code - or fix the resulting errors when I don’t do that. So: boilerplate and outer app layers, yes; architecture and core libraries,…

Similar experience. I used Gitlab Duo and now the JetBrains AI assistant (the small one which does inly inline).

What I notice is that line-completion is quite good if you read the produced code in prosa. But most of the times the internals are different, and so the completed line is still useless.

E.g. assume an Enum Completion with values InlineCompletion, FullLine, NoCompletion.

If i write

> if (currentMode == Compl

It will happily suggest

> if (currentMode == Completion.FullLineCompletion) {

while not realizing that this enum values does not exist.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#537

Post by DeathArrow »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #329
ianbutler wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience. I've used AI to move multi thousand line codebases between languages. I've created new apps from scratch with it. My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person. At the end of the day it can belt out lines of code faster than I…

As a programmer of over 20 years - this is terrifying. I'm willing to accept that I just have "get off my lawn" syndrome or something. But the idea of letting an LLM write/move large swaths of code seems so incredibly irresponsible. Whenever I sit down to write some code, be it a large implementation or a small function, I think about what other people (or future versions of myself) will struggle with when interactin…

> Whenever I sit down to write some code, be it a large implementation or a small function, I think about what other people (or future versions of myself) will struggle with when interacting with the code. Is it clear and concise? Is it too clever? Is it too easy to write a subtle bug when making changes? Have I made it totally clear that X is relying on Y dangerous behavior by adding a comment or intentionally making it visible in some other way?

Over 20 years of experience, too, but I quit doing that for work. Nobody really really cares, all they care is about time to market and having features they've sold yesterday to customers being done today.

As long as I follow some mental models and some rules, the code is reasonably well written and there is no need to procrastinate and think too much.

When I write code for myself, or I am contributing to a small project with a small number of contributors, then things change. If I can afford and I like it I am not only willing to assure things are carefully thought out, but also I am willing to experiment and test until I am sure that I use the best variant I can come up with. Like going from 99% to 99.9%, even if it wouldn't matter in practice. Just for fun.

As a manager, I wouldn't ask people to write perfect code, nor I would like them to ship buggy code very fast, but ship reasonably good code as fast as they can write reasonable good code.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#538

Post by DeathArrow »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #329
ianbutler wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience. I've used AI to move multi thousand line codebases between languages. I've created new apps from scratch with it. My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person. At the end of the day it can belt out lines of code faster than I…

As a programmer of over 20 years - this is terrifying. I'm willing to accept that I just have "get off my lawn" syndrome or something. But the idea of letting an LLM write/move large swaths of code seems so incredibly irresponsible. Whenever I sit down to write some code, be it a large implementation or a small function, I think about what other people (or future versions of myself) will struggle with when interactin…

>Change my mind.

Nobody pays for splendid code that isn't in production. They will gladly pay for buggy code that is in production and solves their needs as long as the marketing team does a good job.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#539

Post by Kiro »

javaunsafe2019 wrote: post #387

I don’t know how people can claim such huge success using copilot and such. I also own a subscription and tried to use it for coding but all task from spring boot authentication configuration to aws policies and lambdas it failed horribly. Writing the code myself using proper documentation was the only option. I wonder if false information is written here in the comments section for certain reasons …

It's a completely new skill that you need to learn. My productivity gains are substantial but it comes from experience building multiple applications using LLMs. I feel I learn something new every day and the tooling just gets better and better.

> I wonder if false information is written here in the comments section for certain reasons …

I find it perplexing that you resort to this instead of other plausible explanations.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#540

Post by ffsm8 »

hi_hi wrote: post #496

Every single one of these discussion, at some point, devolves to some version of - is by far the best. In my extensive usage it is consistently outperforms by at least 2x. The difference is night and day. Then the immediate child reply: - What!? You must be holding it wrong. The complete inverse is true for me. I don't know what to make of this contradiction. We're all using the same 2 things right? How can opinions…

Ever heard of astroturfing?
Post reply on HN