Live data from Hacker News

The Generative AI Con

wheresyoured.at

61–70 of 503 posts

Re: The Generative AI Con

#61
post #57
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotting bubbles and predicting they will burst at some point is not a particularly useful skill. Housing in Amsterdam was in a bubble for 37 years in the 1700s; identifying the bubble early on would have been completely pointless.

So what should one do when one notices a bubble?

If I had a reliable / repeatable answer to that question, my net worth would be a very large multiple of what it currently is!

Re: The Generative AI Con

#62

Hey I have my gripes with the landscape, certainly, but this is just too much. > It sure is! But it doesn't really prove anything other than that people are using the single-most-talked about product in the world. By comparison, billions of people use Facebook and Google. I don't care about this number! > User numbers alone tell you nothing about the sustainability or profitability of a business, or how those people…

> Both of these "arguments" could be applied to any of the big tech giants of the last 25 years - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, whatever (and there'd be other incumbents used by billions of people before them). I don't believe these arguments discount ChatGPT from having the potential to continue growing like a Facebook. And who cares how many journalists Altman knows, you don't get a product written about that much unless it's truly a groundbreaking product.

I don't get these statements. This line of thinking is so egregious, FTX made an ad about it. This is survivorship bias. If 'wrong' predictions about some can be discrediting, then why not right predictions to establish credibility? The same people were right about the Segway, crypto, metaverse, web3, that dog walking startup that Softbank burned money on, and countless other harebrained endeavors.

Even in your example, Uber is a financial crime. It is still using accounting tricks to show profit.

Re: The Generative AI Con

#63
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbh they'd have been right. Cars are expensive to buy and to maintain. They are difficult to operate—people die every day. They do smell bad, and the particulate matter they emit is extremely bad for you. And they are slow: Traffic is an unsolvable problem in urban centres. Redesigning our cities around cars was one of the big mistakes of the 20th century.

And yet, they’re better than what they replaced. Horses weren’t cheap when they were a primary mode of transportation. Lots of people have died riding, driving, and breaking horses. They definitely smell bad, and their “particulate matter” was so bad that houses had to be set back and elevated from the street. Cities designed around cars are far superior to cities designed around horses.

But cities designed around trains are superior and it was a contemporary technology that was ignored.

Re: The Generative AI Con

#64
post #18
post #12

I’m a little shocked at how much negativity there is around LLMs among developers. It’s a new tool that requires some learning, and it’s sometimes not so great, but if you’ve used an IDE with real coding assistance built in (eg. VS Code in Edit with Copilot mode - NOT Chat mode, using Claude 3.5), it’s honestly not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. And if the code is bad you throw it away and try again 10…

Unreliable tools are utterly exhausting. > not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. Is there a greater hell than this!?

At least with a junior dev, I can teach them how to do it better next time. Not so much with generative "AI".

Re: The Generative AI Con

#65
post #17
post #11

> And even then, we still don't have a killer app! There is no product that everybody loves, and there is no iPhone moment! I would strongly argue that coding assistants are AI’s first killer app. Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf etc.

Are they? I find Agentic mode on most editors barely useful. Autocomplete and inline editing is great though. To use these tools properly, you need to know how to build the same thing precisely.

Nah you don't to know to build the same thing precisely. Just the other day I wanted to write a vanilla JS component that could let you select a picture from something like a carousel and be able to blow up the selected picture when clicked. I know JS / HTML but am not used to working with vanilla JS. Copilot didn't write it all by itself but it did teach me things I didn't know like making a custom tag in vanilla JS by extending an HTMLElement.

The code isn't the most readable because I don't need it to be however if you make me write it from scratch in an interview style setting I'd have trouble doing it. If I read the code I can follow it and it makes sense + it's an easy component to manually test. So.. no, I don't need to know how to precisely build the same thing.

And before you worry that I'm committing code I can't build from scratch.. This is a simple component for a 5 page landing page build with astro where I'm the "main" dev ( wrote like 80% of the code). The web-page won't even need maintainance once it's deployed

Re: The Generative AI Con

#66
post #64
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreliable tools are utterly exhausting. > not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. Is there a greater hell than this!?

At least with a junior dev, I can teach them how to do it better next time. Not so much with generative "AI".

Not totally. But you might be surprised at the things you can do. Cursor has some template-like files where you can basically teach the AI “when we do X, do it this way.” Or you can change the global prompt to add the things it should keep in mind when working with you.

If you actually take the time to tell it “hey, don’t do it this way,” it can definitely do it differently the next time.

On top of that, is anyone training models on their own codebase, and noting to AI which patterns are best practice and which aren’t?

There are a ton of ways to make it better than the baseline copilot experience

Re: The Generative AI Con

#68
post #18
post #12

I’m a little shocked at how much negativity there is around LLMs among developers. It’s a new tool that requires some learning, and it’s sometimes not so great, but if you’ve used an IDE with real coding assistance built in (eg. VS Code in Edit with Copilot mode - NOT Chat mode, using Claude 3.5), it’s honestly not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. And if the code is bad you throw it away and try again 10…

Unreliable tools are utterly exhausting. > not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. Is there a greater hell than this!?

That's 100x more bugs to fix. Moreover, increasingly complex models produce bugs that are increasingly hard to spot and fix.

Re: The Generative AI Con

#69
for people using these AI products for coding what exactly are you doing ?

general API plumbing ? call this api, combine the json results & spit it out. Then slap a React / Next.js frontend ?

lately, I have been doing your classical business apps - due to the domain rules - ai is pretty useless - but I have found perplexity and deep mind to be smarter stack overflows. that's it.

Re: The Generative AI Con

#70
A huge part of our problems stems from the fact that it's possible to make "companies" whose business model is built on losing money hand over fist until they've brainwashed everyone into thinking their "product" is good. In a sane world these companies would fail and AI would continue develop through small failures and small successes over a period of years or decades. Instead we get a firehose of nonsense just because a small number of wealthy people are willing to gamble.
Post reply on HN