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

Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

nrehiew.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 267 posts

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#61

Post by cortesoft »

mnkypete wrote: post #38
cortesoft wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share some of the feelings about 'not understanding what is actually happening under the hood', I can't help but think about how this feeling is the exact same response that programmers had when compilers were invented: https://vivekhaldar.com/articles/when-compilers-were-the--ai... We are completely comfortable now letting the compilers do their thing, and never seem to worry that we "don't know what is actu…

Except that compilers are (at least to a large degree) deterministic. It's complexity that you don't need to worry about. You don't need to review the generated assembly. You absolutely need to review AI generated code.

At the end of the day, LLMs are also deterministic. They are running on computers just like all software, and if you have all the same data and random seeds, and you give the same prompt to the same LLM, you will get back the exact same response.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#62

Post by applfanboysbgon »

ok_dad wrote: post #10
anonu wrote: post #5

Here, the author means the agent over-edits code. But agents also do "too much": as in they touch multiple files, run tests, do deployments, run smoke tests, etc... And all of this gets abstracted away. On one hand, its incredible. But on the other hand I have deep anxiety over this: 1. I have no real understanding of what is actually happening under the hood. The ease of just accepting a prompt to run some script th…

Why are you letting the LLM drive? Don't turn on auto-approve, approve every command the agent runs. Don't let it make design or architecture decisions, you choose how it is built and you TELL that clanker what's what! No joke, if you treat the AI like a tool then you'll get more mileage out of it. You won't get 10x gains, but you will still understand the code.

This is significantly slower than just writing the code yourself.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#63

Post by cortesoft »

ManuelKiessling wrote: post #36
cortesoft wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share some of the feelings about 'not understanding what is actually happening under the hood', I can't help but think about how this feeling is the exact same response that programmers had when compilers were invented: https://vivekhaldar.com/articles/when-compilers-were-the--ai... We are completely comfortable now letting the compilers do their thing, and never seem to worry that we "don't know what is actu…

(I‘m saying this as someone who uses AI for coding a lot and mostly love it) Yeah, but is that really the same? Compilers work deterministically — if it works once, it will work always. LLMs are a different story for now.

LLMs are deterministic, too. I know there is randomness in the choosing tokens, but that randomness is derived from a random seed that can be repeated.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#64

Post by deepfriedbits »

Isolated_Routes wrote: post #56

I think building something really well with AI takes a lot of work. You can certainly ask it to do things and it will comply, and produce something pretty good. But you don't know what you don't know, especially when it speaks to you authoritatively. So checking its work from many different angles and making sure it's precise can be a challenge. Will be interesting to see how all of this iterates over time.

I agree 100%. At the same time, I feel like this piece, and our comments on it are snapshots in time because of the rate of advancement in the industry. These coding models are already significantly better than they were even nine months ago.

I can't help but read complaints about the capabilities of AI – and I'm certainly not accusing you of complaining about AI, just a general thought – and think "Yet" to myself every time.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#65

Post by lucasgerads »

anonu wrote: post #5

Here, the author means the agent over-edits code. But agents also do "too much": as in they touch multiple files, run tests, do deployments, run smoke tests, etc... And all of this gets abstracted away. On one hand, its incredible. But on the other hand I have deep anxiety over this: 1. I have no real understanding of what is actually happening under the hood. The ease of just accepting a prompt to run some script th…

I usually try to review all the code written by claude. And also let claude review all the code that i write. So, usually I have some understanding of what is going on. And Claude definitely sometimes makes "unconventional" decisions. But if you are working on a large code base with other team members (some of which may already have left the company). Their are also large parts of the code that one doesn't understand and are abstracted away.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#67

Post by cortesoft »

betenoire wrote: post #48
ManuelKiessling wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I‘m saying this as someone who uses AI for coding a lot and mostly love it) Yeah, but is that really the same? Compilers work deterministically — if it works once, it will work always. LLMs are a different story for now.

Said another way, compilers are a translation of existing formal code. Compilers don't add features, they don't create algorithms (unrolling, etc., notwithstanding), they are another expression of the same encoded solution. LLMs are nothing like that

LLMs are just translating text into output, too, and are running on deterministic computers like every other bit of code we run. They aren't magic.

It is just the scope that makes it appear non-deterministic to a human looking at it, and it is large enough to be impossible for a human to follow the entire deterministic chain, but that doesn't mean it isn't in the end a function that translates input data into output data in a deterministic way.

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#68

Post by ryandrake »

cortesoft wrote: post #32
anonu wrote: post #5

Here, the author means the agent over-edits code. But agents also do "too much": as in they touch multiple files, run tests, do deployments, run smoke tests, etc... And all of this gets abstracted away. On one hand, its incredible. But on the other hand I have deep anxiety over this: 1. I have no real understanding of what is actually happening under the hood. The ease of just accepting a prompt to run some script th…

While I share some of the feelings about 'not understanding what is actually happening under the hood', I can't help but think about how this feeling is the exact same response that programmers had when compilers were invented: https://vivekhaldar.com/articles/when-compilers-were-the--ai... We are completely comfortable now letting the compilers do their thing, and never seem to worry that we "don't know what is actu…

[dead]

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#69

Post by nextaccountic »

cortesoft wrote: post #32
anonu wrote: post #5

Here, the author means the agent over-edits code. But agents also do "too much": as in they touch multiple files, run tests, do deployments, run smoke tests, etc... And all of this gets abstracted away. On one hand, its incredible. But on the other hand I have deep anxiety over this: 1. I have no real understanding of what is actually happening under the hood. The ease of just accepting a prompt to run some script th…

While I share some of the feelings about 'not understanding what is actually happening under the hood', I can't help but think about how this feeling is the exact same response that programmers had when compilers were invented: https://vivekhaldar.com/articles/when-compilers-were-the--ai... We are completely comfortable now letting the compilers do their thing, and never seem to worry that we "don't know what is actu…

The difference is that compilers are supposed to be deterministic and low level inclined people often investigate compiler bugs (specially performance bugs) and can pinpoint to some deterministic code that triggered it. Fix the underlying code and it stops misbehaving with high assurance

A non deterministic compiler is probably defective and in any case much less useful

Re: Over-editing refers to a model modifying code beyond what is necessary

#70

Post by Isolated_Routes »

deepfriedbits wrote: post #64
Isolated_Routes wrote: post #56

I think building something really well with AI takes a lot of work. You can certainly ask it to do things and it will comply, and produce something pretty good. But you don't know what you don't know, especially when it speaks to you authoritatively. So checking its work from many different angles and making sure it's precise can be a challenge. Will be interesting to see how all of this iterates over time.

I agree 100%. At the same time, I feel like this piece, and our comments on it are snapshots in time because of the rate of advancement in the industry. These coding models are already significantly better than they were even nine months ago. I can't help but read complaints about the capabilities of AI – and I'm certainly not accusing you of complaining about AI, just a general thought – and think "Yet" to myself ev…

Exactly! I completely agree. I think figuring out how to use this new tool well develop into a bit of an art form, which we will race to keep up with.
Post reply on HN