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

Everyone in Seattle hates AI

jonready.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#551

Post by nilkn »

CSMastermind wrote: post #223
pkasting wrote: post #40

Ex-Google here; there are many people both current and past-Google that feel the same way as the composite coworker in the linked post. I haven't escaped this mindset myself. I'm convinced there are a small number of places where LLMs make truly effective tools (see: generation of "must be plausible, need not be accurate" data, e.g. concept art or crowd animations in movies), a large number of places where LLMs make…

My friends at Google are some of the most negative about the potential of AI to improve software development. I was always surprised by this and assumed internally at Google would be one of the first places to adopt these.

People who've spent their life perfecting a craft are exactly the people you'd expect would be most negative about something genuinely disrupting that craft. There is significant precedent for this. It's happened repeatedly in history. Really smart, talented people routinely and in fact quite predictably resist technology that disrupts their craft, often even at great personal cost within their own lifetime.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#552

Post by venturecruelty »

adastra22 wrote: post #369
elzbardico wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than this man. AI is making me re-appreciate part of the Marxist criticism of capitalism. The concept of worker alienation could be easily extended in new forms to the labor situation in an AI-based economy. FWIW, humans derive a lot of their self-evaluation as people from labor.

Marx was correct in his identification of the problem (the communist manifesto still holds up today). Marx went off the rails with his solution.

Getting everyone to even agree that this is a problem is impossible. I'm open to the universe of solutions, as long as it isn't "Anthropic and OpenAI get another $100 billion dollars while we starve". We can probably start there.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#553

Post by Barrin92 »

vunderba wrote: post #24

From the article: > I wanted her take on Wanderfugl , the AI-powered map I've been building full-time. I can at least give you one piece of advice. Before you decide on a company or product name, take the time to speak it out loud so you can get a sense of how it sounds.

I think the more pressing advice here is, limit yourself to one name (https://wanderfugl.com/images/guides.png)

this must be one of the incredible AI innovations the folks in Seattle are missing out on

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#555

Post by ajkjk »

basscomm wrote: post #260
ajkjk wrote: post #124

> like building an AI product made me part of the problem. It's not about their careers. It's about the injustice of the whole situation. Can you possibly perceive the injustice? That the thing they're pissed about is the injustice? You're part of the problem because you can't. That's why it's not about whether the tools are good or bad. Most of them suck, also, but occasionally they don't--but that's not the point.…

> It's not about their careers. That's the thing, though, it is about their careers. It's not just that people are annoyed that someone who spends years to decades learning their craft and then someone who put a prompt into a chatbot that spit out an app that mostly works without understanding any of the code that they 'wrote'. It's that the executives are positively giddy at the prospect that they can get rid of som…

disagree completely. You're doing the thing I described: assuming it's all ultimately about personal benefit when they're telling you directly that it's not. The same people could trivially capitalize on the shifting climate and have a good career in the new world. But they'd still be pissed about it.

I'm one of these people. So is everyone I know. The grievance is moral, not utilitarian. I don't care about executives getting rid of people. I care that they're causing obviously stupid things to happen, based on their stupid delusions, making everyone's lives worse, and they're unaccountable for it. And in doing so they devalue all of the things I consider to be good about tech, like good software that works and solves real problems. Of course they always did that but it's especially bad now.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#556

Post by nateglims »

deaux wrote: post #508
nateglims wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of tech, I think the opinion is generally negative. AI has lost a lot the narrative due to things like energy prices and layoffs.

Globally, the opinion isn't generally negative. It's localized.

Sure, I meant the anglosphere. But in most countries, the less people are aware of technology or use the internet the less they are enthusiastic about AI.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#557

Post by queenkjuul »

jliptzin wrote: post #549
pkasting wrote: post #40

Ex-Google here; there are many people both current and past-Google that feel the same way as the composite coworker in the linked post. I haven't escaped this mindset myself. I'm convinced there are a small number of places where LLMs make truly effective tools (see: generation of "must be plausible, need not be accurate" data, e.g. concept art or crowd animations in movies), a large number of places where LLMs make…

My friends and I have always wondered as we've gotten older what's going to be the new tech that the younger generation seems to know and understand innately while the older generations remain clueless and always need help navigating (like computers/internet for my parents' generation and above). I am convinced that thing is AI. Kids growing up today are using AI for everything, whether or not that's sanctioned or if…

The thing is, Claude Code is great for unimportant casual projects, and genuinely very bad at working in big, complex, established projects. The latter of course being the ones most people actually work on.

Well either it's bad at it, or everyone on my team is bad at prompting. Given how dedicated my boss has been to using Claude for everything for the past year and the output continuing to be garbage, though, i don't think it's a lack of effort on the team's part, i have to believe Claude just isn't good at my job.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#558

Post by pennomi »

queenkjuul wrote: post #557
jliptzin wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends and I have always wondered as we've gotten older what's going to be the new tech that the younger generation seems to know and understand innately while the older generations remain clueless and always need help navigating (like computers/internet for my parents' generation and above). I am convinced that thing is AI. Kids growing up today are using AI for everything, whether or not that's sanctioned or if…

The thing is, Claude Code is great for unimportant casual projects, and genuinely very bad at working in big, complex, established projects. The latter of course being the ones most people actually work on. Well either it's bad at it, or everyone on my team is bad at prompting. Given how dedicated my boss has been to using Claude for everything for the past year and the output continuing to be garbage, though, i don'…

As context size increases, AI becomes exponentially dumber. Most established software is far, FAR too large for AI. But small, greenfield projects are amazing for something like Claude Code.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#559

Post by BearOso »

dwaltrip wrote: post #153
suprjami wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it that way. Tabs, spaces, curly brace placement, Vim, Emacs, VSCode, etc are largely aesthetic choices with some marginal unproven cognitive implications. I find people mostly prefer what they are used to, and if your preference was so superior then how could so many people build fantastic software using the method you don't like? AI isn't like that. AI is a bunch of people telling me this product can do…

You can vibe-code a throwaway UI for investigating some complex data in less than 30 minutes. The code quality doesn't matter, and it will make your life much easier. Rinse and repeat for many "one-off" tasks. It's not going away, you need to learn how to use it. shrugs shoulders

But how do you know you're getting the correct picture from that throwaway UI? A little while back there was an blog posted where the author wrote an article praising AI for his vibe-coded earth-viewer app that used Vulkan to render inside a GUI window. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and AI just copied from somewhere and inserted code for a rudimentary software rendering. The AI couldn't do what was asked because it had seldom been done. Nobody on the internet ever discussed that particular objective, so it wasn't in the training set.

The lesson to learn is that these are "large-language models." That means it can regurgitate what someone else has done before textually, but not actually create something novel. So it's fine if someone on the internet has posted or talked about a quick UI in whatever particular toolkit you're using to analyze data. But it'll throw out BS if you ask for something brand new. I suspect a lot of AI users are web developers who write a lot of repetitive rote boilerplate, and that's the kind of thing these LLMs really thrive with.

Re: Everyone in Seattle hates AI

#560

Post by queenkjuul »

nilkn wrote: post #551
CSMastermind wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends at Google are some of the most negative about the potential of AI to improve software development. I was always surprised by this and assumed internally at Google would be one of the first places to adopt these.

People who've spent their life perfecting a craft are exactly the people you'd expect would be most negative about something genuinely disrupting that craft. There is significant precedent for this. It's happened repeatedly in history. Really smart, talented people routinely and in fact quite predictably resist technology that disrupts their craft, often even at great personal cost within their own lifetime.

I don't know that i consider recognizing the limitations of a tool to be resistance to the idea. It makes sense that experts would recognize those limitations most acutely -- my $30 harbor freight circular saw is a lifesaver for me when I'm doing slapdash work in my shed, but it'd be a critical liability for a professional carpenter needing precision cuts. That doesn't mean the professional carpenter is resistant to the idea of using power saws, just that they necessarily must be more discerning than I do.
Post reply on HN