Live data from Hacker News

747s and coding agents

carlkolon.com

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: 747s and coding agents

#61
post #24

We should be very concerned for the next generation. When you have the constant temptation of digging yourself out of a problem just by asking an LLM how will you ever learn anything? My biggest lessons were from hours of pain and toil, scouring the internet. When I finally found the solution, the dopamine hit ensured that lesson was burned into my neurons. There is no such dopamine hit with LLMs. You vaguely try to…

> We should be very concerned for the next generation. When you have the constant temptation of digging yourself out of a problem just by asking an LLM how will you ever learn anything?

This is just the same concern whenever a new technology appears.

* Socrates argued that writing would weaken memory, that it would create only superficially knowledge but incapable of really understanding. But it didn't destroy it. It allowed to store information and share it with many others far away.

* The internet and web indexers made information instantly accessible, allowing you to search for the information you just need, the fear is that people would just copy from the internet, yet researching information became way faster, any one with Internet access could access this information and learn themselves, just look at the amount of educational websites with courses to learn.

Each time a new technology came and people feared that it could degrade knowledge, the tools only helped us to increase our knowledge.

Just like with books and the internet, people could simply copy and not learn anything, its not exclusive to LLMs. The issue isn't in the tool itself, but how we use it. The new generation will probably instead of learning how to search, they will need to learn how to prompt, ask and evaluate whether the LLM isn't hallucinating or not.

Re: 747s and coding agents

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt a little odd saying, "Back in my day we had to understand the cpu, registers, etc." It's a true statement, but doesn't help in any way. Is that stuff still worth knowing, IMHO? Yes. Can you create incredibly useful code without that knowledge today? Absolutely.

> Can you create incredibly useful code without that knowledge today? You could do that without that knowledge back in the day too, we had languages that were higher level than assembler for forever. It's just that the range of knowledge needed to maximize machine usage is far smaller now. Before you had to know how to write a ton of optimizations, nowadays you have to know how to write your code so the compiler have…

Or more so - machines have gotten so fast, with so much disk and memory.. that people can ship slopware filled with bloatware and the UX is almost as responsive as Windows 3.1 was

Re: 747s and coding agents

#63
post #52

What the fuck are people working on where it's possible for the LLM to just add entire features. Refactors and class/method level code can be impressive, anything highly structured with good guard rails. As soon as things start to reach beyond that it falls to absolute garbage.

There are companies building entire applications, indeed replicating the functionality of existing SaaS applications to test their original applications,with no humans in the development loop.

We're looking at the twilight of programming as a human skill. The LLMs are just that good.

Re: 747s and coding agents

#64
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use AI for very little but I do like using it for stuff I'm just not very interested in but have to get done. For programming, I don't like it. It's like a master carpenter building furniture from IKEA. Sure it's faster and he doesn't have to think very hard and the end result is acceptable but he feels lazy and after a while he feels like he is losing his skills. The best days of computing for me were what you rem…

All fair, but I think a different interpretation could be that AI allows you to vastly expand the scope of the possible, such to create a situation again where things are challenging and frustrating and fun.

This is the part that interests me most. The IKEA analogy from the parent comment assumes the carpenter's only option is to build the same furniture faster. But what if the carpenter uses the prefab stuff for the boring parts and spends their real energy on the joints and details that actually matter?

I've noticed this pattern in music too - the people who understand theory deeply use generative tools in ways that beginners literally can't, because they know which output to keep and which to throw away. The tool doesn't replace the taste, it just gives you more raw material to apply taste to.

But here's what I keep wondering: does expanding the scope of the possible eventually erode the deep understanding that makes the expansion valuable in the first place? Like, if you never have to debug a memory leak because the agent handles it, do you lose the intuition that would let you architect systems that don't leak in the first place?

Re: 747s and coding agents

#65

I am not sure how many other people on here are old enough to remember, but I first learned to program before I had the internet. I had to read books, and then if I was trying to figure out how to do something, I would have to figure out which book to look it up in, and then figure out where in the book to find it and how to apply it to my situation. It made me learn a ton, because I would have to read a lot of books…

So much AI moaning and groaning these days seems based on the idea that people have to be forced to do anything of value, even for themselves. It seems to imply a great deal of pessimism about human self-determination. Like, I can't be anything good unless there is an external mold pressing me into the good shape. And it can't be my choice because I would never choose anything good. I'll only do good things for mysel…

Or we can just do art or live short, simple lives now that we won capitalism and our basic needs can be automated in a global socialist utopia.

Re: 747s and coding agents

#66
post #24

We should be very concerned for the next generation. When you have the constant temptation of digging yourself out of a problem just by asking an LLM how will you ever learn anything? My biggest lessons were from hours of pain and toil, scouring the internet. When I finally found the solution, the dopamine hit ensured that lesson was burned into my neurons. There is no such dopamine hit with LLMs. You vaguely try to…

My concern is also, how will programming and software design ever improve?

Re: 747s and coding agents

#67

I've seen a lot of posts like this one, but this is the first to encapsulate how I feel so well. Honestly, I don't really know what to do. I spent my whole life (so far; I'm still very young) falling in love with programming, and now I just don't find this agent thing fun at all. But I just don't know how to find my niche if using LLMs truly does end up being the only way for me to build valuable things with my only…

Could I ask, what did you love about programming that you now don't find this agent thing fun at all.

I'm genuinely curious, I feel very differently and excited about this agent thing.

Asking because unlike a lot of other commentary, this struck me as being more about the act itself than being depressed/anxious for financial reasons, etc

Re: 747s and coding agents

#68
post #52

What the fuck are people working on where it's possible for the LLM to just add entire features. Refactors and class/method level code can be impressive, anything highly structured with good guard rails. As soon as things start to reach beyond that it falls to absolute garbage.

I built this entire app on ios + website without opening an IDE.

https://www.gophergolfer.com/iphone

NextJS, Rails, GraphQL, React Native

Certainly wasn't one-shot for all of it but case in point it has dozens and dozens of "features" all LLM implemented

Re: 747s and coding agents

#69
> I believe in coding primarily as a means to an end

Yes. Absolutely. To what end, though? Is your end deterministic like a cryptographic protocol or loose like pagination of a web page? Is your end feature delivery or 30 years of rock solid service delivery at minimal cost?

AI is a dangerous tool. It exposes fundamental questions by automating away the mundane. We have had the luxury of not thinking deep and hard about intent and value creation/capture and system architecture. AI is putting us face to face with our ineptitude: maybe it wasn’t the tech stack or the programmers or the whatnots? Maybe the idea was shait, maybe I had no understanding of the value added of my product? Maybe …?

You get the best gear - musical instrument, bicycle, camera, etc - the pros have and still the results are not great. Gotta ask why. We are experiencing this at literally industrial scale.

Re: 747s and coding agents

#70
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much AI moaning and groaning these days seems based on the idea that people have to be forced to do anything of value, even for themselves. It seems to imply a great deal of pessimism about human self-determination. Like, I can't be anything good unless there is an external mold pressing me into the good shape. And it can't be my choice because I would never choose anything good. I'll only do good things for mysel…

Or we can just do art or live short, simple lives now that we won capitalism and our basic needs can be automated in a global socialist utopia.

I don’t really like making art though. I like programming.
Post reply on HN