591–600 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if Reddit is just a CRUD app, what is Moltbook?
An impressive MVP of Reddit, with zero sophistication. It's a CRAP app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling Reddit a CRUD app isn’t wrong, it’s just vacuous. It strips away every part that actually makes Reddit hard. What happens when you sign up? A CRUD app shows a form and inserts a row. Reddit runs bot detection, rate limits, fingerprinting, shadow restrictions, and abuse heuristics you don’t even see, and you don’t know which ones, because that knowledge is their moat. What happens when you upvote or downvote?…
> Reddit runs bot detection, rate limits, fingerprinting, shadow restrictions, and abuse heuristics you don’t even see, and you don’t know which ones, because that knowledge is their moat. > Reddit says “run a ranking algorithm refined over years, with vote fuzzing, decay, abuse detection, and intentional lies in the UI.” As the number you see is not the number stored. > etc... The question is; is moltbook doing this…
So as we have established, it's not even a basic Reddit clone.
And anyone who says they can build one in a week is giving HN a bad reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That absolutely sounds like a case where AI will only plaster over the problem and eventually make it worse.
I don't see how...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I'm being pedantic or narrow. Cosmic rays, power spikes, and falling cows can change the course of deterministic software. I'm saying that your "compiler" either has intentionally designed randomness (or "creativity") in it, or it doesn't. Not sure why we're acting like these are more or less deterministic. They are either deterministic or not inside normal operation of a computer.
To be clear: I'm not engaging with your main point about whether LLMs are usable in software engineering or not. I'm specifically addressing your use of the concept of determinism. An LLM is a set of matrix multiplies and function applications. The only potentially non-deterministic step is selecting the next token from the final output and that can be done deterministically. By your strict use of the definition they…
They _can_ be deterministic, but they usually _aren't_.
That said, I just tried "make me a haiku" via Gemini 3 Flash with T=0 twice in different sessions, and both times it output the same haiku. It's possible that T=0 enables deterministic mode indeed, and in that case perhaps we can treat it like a compiler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biological systems are vastly more complex, and less brittle, in the sense that killing a single cell doesn't cause system failure like for example removing an object file from a program often would. Just look at the complexity of a single sell, and try to imagine what an analog of similar complexity would be in software.
You're kind of jumping around in scope here, and I think you got it a little wrong. >Biological systems are vastly more complex, and less brittle, in the sense that killing a single cell doesn't cause system failure like for example removing an object file from a program often would. Removing a single node from a massively parallel system doesn't kill the system either, it only removes one node, another node will spi…
Gosh I've just imagined someone asking an AI agent to code a computer virus to infect software "X". The virus' code will be wonderfully complex and therefore so will the response of the AI responsible for keeping "X" uninfected and in good working order.
I was imagining code becoming awesomely complex even without the adversarial element in play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're kind of jumping around in scope here, and I think you got it a little wrong. >Biological systems are vastly more complex, and less brittle, in the sense that killing a single cell doesn't cause system failure like for example removing an object file from a program often would. Removing a single node from a massively parallel system doesn't kill the system either, it only removes one node, another node will spi…
> "AI" will probably lead to some kind of "digital cancer" Gosh I've just imagined someone asking an AI agent to code a computer virus to infect software "X". The virus' code will be wonderfully complex and therefore so will the response of the AI responsible for keeping "X" uninfected and in good working order. I was imagining code becoming awesomely complex even without the adversarial element in play.
"Hey AI, create my new banking app with such-and-such functionality, appearance, properties, APIs, network connections etc"
"Hey AI, you are a banking app on a user's cellphone. Connect to mybank.com, authenticate the user and allow the user to perform these-and-those actions in a sensible interface in accordance with the API spec. Don't let yourself be jailbroken."
Then it would be logical to have a single AI on the phone managing all the prompts in parallel: e.g. "Hey AI, be android by doing [actions]", "Hey AI, be firefox...", "Hey AI, be snapchat...", "Hey AI, be [insert app name]...".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. For area where you can use tested and tried libraries (or tools in general) LLMs will generate better code when they use them. In fact, LLMs will be better than humans in learning new frameworks. It could end up being the opposite that frameworks and libraries become more important with LLMs.
How will LLM's become better than humans in learning new frameworks when automated/vibe coders never manually code how to use those new frameworks ?
A significant number of developers and businesses are going to have an absolutely brutal rude awakening in the not too distant future. You can build things this way, and they may work for a time, but you don't know what you don't know (and experience teaches you that you only find most stuff by building/struggling; not sipping a soda while the AI blurts out potentially secure/stable code). The hubris around AI is goi…
The interesting aspect is: that allows people who couldn't do it before to build tools for their department needs. Where in the past they would have needed a budget for going to the IT department and then do complex processes to transfer the requirements from business needs into a form the developers understand. Now they can quickly build simple tools. Yes, they are bad from software quality pov, but they solve probl…
Simple tools can make big mistakes.
I've done it. It was an outlier case. A small mistake of logic giving out money already paid once in a neglected corner (so to speak) of the logic tree. One bad script can overshadow tens of good ones.
A significant number of developers and businesses are going to have an absolutely brutal rude awakening in the not too distant future. You can build things this way, and they may work for a time, but you don't know what you don't know (and experience teaches you that you only find most stuff by building/struggling; not sipping a soda while the AI blurts out potentially secure/stable code). The hubris around AI is goi…