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

Using LLMs at Oxide

rfd.shared.oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#61

Post by NobodyNada »

bccdee wrote: post #30
bryancoxwell wrote: post #7

Find it interesting that the section about LLM’s tells when using it for writing is absolutely littered with emdashes

To be fair, LLMs usually use em-dashes correctly, whereas I think this document misuses them more often than not. For example: > This can be extraordinarily powerful for summarizing documents — or of answering more specific questions of a large document like a datasheet or specification. That dash shouldn't be there. That's not a parenthetical clause, that's an element in a list separated by "or." You can just remove…

LLMs also generally don't put spaces around em dashes — but a lot of human writers do.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#62

Post by ryandrake »

john01dav wrote: post #20

> Wherever LLM-generated code is used, it becomes the responsibility of the engineer. As part of this process of taking responsibility, self-review becomes essential: LLM-generated code should not be reviewed by others if the responsible engineer has not themselves reviewed it. Moreover, once in the loop of peer review, generation should more or less be removed: if code review comments are addressed by wholesale re-g…

I've found that your step 6 takes the vast majority of the time I spend programming with LLMs. Like 10X+ the combined total of time steps 1-5 take. And that's if the code the LLM produced actually works. If it doesn't work (which happens quite often), then even more handholding and corrections are needed. It's really a grind. I'm still not sure whether I am net saving time using these tools.

I always wonder about the people who say LLMs save them so much time: Do you just accept the edits they make without reviewing each and every line?

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#63

Post by gpm »

torben-friis wrote: post #33

The guide is generally very well thought, but I see an issue in this part: It sets the rule that things must be actually read when there’s a social expectation (code interviews for example) but otherwise… remarks that use of LLMs to assist comprehension has little downside. I find two problems with this: - there is incoherence there. If LLMs are flawless in reading and summarization, there is no difference with readi…

> Just yesterday I asked for a comparison of three technical books on a similar topic, and it wrongly guessed the third one rather than follow the three links.

I would consider this a failure in their tool use capabilities, not their reading ones.

To use them to read things (without relying on their much less reliable tool use) take the thing and put it in the context window yourself.

They still aren't perfect of course, but they are reasonably good.

Three whole books likely exceeds their context window size of course, I'd take this as a sign that they aren't up to a task of that magnitude yet.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#64

Post by themk »

mcqueenjordan wrote: post #28

As usual with Oxide's RFDs, I found myself vigorously head-nodding while reading. Somewhat rarely, I found a part that I found myself disagreeing with: > Unlike prose, however (which really should be handed in a polished form to an LLM to maximize the LLM’s efficacy), LLMs can be quite effective writing code de novo. Don't the same arguments against using LLMs to write one's prose also apply to code? Was this structu…

I recently published an internal memo which covered the same point, but I included code. I feel like you still have a "voice" in code, and it provides important cues to the reviewer. I also consider review to be an important learning and collaboration moment, which becomes difficult with LLM code.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#66

Post by the_af »

bccdee wrote: post #30
bryancoxwell wrote: post #7

Find it interesting that the section about LLM’s tells when using it for writing is absolutely littered with emdashes

To be fair, LLMs usually use em-dashes correctly, whereas I think this document misuses them more often than not. For example: > This can be extraordinarily powerful for summarizing documents — or of answering more specific questions of a large document like a datasheet or specification. That dash shouldn't be there. That's not a parenthetical clause, that's an element in a list separated by "or." You can just remove…

I don't know whether that use of the em-dash is grammatically correct, but I've seen enough native English writers use it like that. One example is Philip K Dick.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#67

Post by SilverSlash »

worble wrote: post #19
john01dav wrote: post #11

> it is presumed that of the reader and the writer, it is the writer that has undertaken the greater intellectual exertion. (That is, it is more work to write than to read!) This applies to natural language, but, interestingly, the opposite is true of code (in my experience and that of other people that I've discussed it with).

See: Kernighan's Law > Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? https://www.laws-of-software.com/laws/kernighan/

What an amazing quote!

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#68

Post by crabmusket »

rgoulter wrote: post #23

> LLM-generated writing undermines the authenticity of not just one’s writing but of the thinking behind it as well. I think this points out a key point.. but I'm not sure the right way to articulate it. A human-written comment may be worth something, but an LLM-generated is cheap/worthless. The nicest phrase capturing the thought I saw was: "I'd rather read the prompt". It's probably just as good to let an LLM gener…

I think more people should read Naur's "programming as theory building".

A comment is an attempt to more fully document the theory the programmer has. Not all theory can be expressed in code. Both code and comment are lossy artefacts that are "projections" of the theory into text.

LLMs currently, I believe, cannot have a theory of the program. But they can definitely perform a useful simulacrum of such. I have not yet seen an LLM generated comment that is truly valuable. Of course, lots of human generated comments are not valuable either. But the ceiling for human comments is much, much higher.

Re: Using LLMs at Oxide

#70

Post by AlexCoventry »

mcqueenjordan wrote: post #28

As usual with Oxide's RFDs, I found myself vigorously head-nodding while reading. Somewhat rarely, I found a part that I found myself disagreeing with: > Unlike prose, however (which really should be handed in a polished form to an LLM to maximize the LLM’s efficacy), LLMs can be quite effective writing code de novo. Don't the same arguments against using LLMs to write one's prose also apply to code? Was this structu…

> I think that the code you actually want to ship is so far from what LLMs write

It depends on the LLM, I think. A lot of people have a bad impression of them as a result of using cheap or outdated LLMs.

Post reply on HN