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

Agentic Mfw

agenticmotherfucking.website

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Agentic Mfw

#61

Post by frizlab »

derangedHorse wrote: post #60

> Here's how open source contributions go down: I clone your repo, point an agent at your test suite, and have it rewrite the whole thing in Rust to a "spec." No copyright infringed, your honor — an agent wrote every line to a clean-room description, and the description was just your code read aloud. The tests were the spec. The spec was theft. Theft was the pipeline. I know this website is tongue-and-cheek but I did…

As a data point, the tests suite were the most precious thing one could have when I was at school. I’m not sure it’s that simple.

Re: Agentic Mfw

#62

Post by classified »

enthdegree wrote: post #5

I'm fatigued by this hyperbole and profanity, especially when written by an LLM. There is too much of this. Human-written or not it makes it very difficult for me to engage with. The sentiment is bad. Is building this better than building nothing? Just because this is how things are does not it's how they should be. I'm very tired.

I for sure wouldn't want to be a mother on this website.

Re: Agentic Mfw

#63

Post by advael »

cyanydeez wrote: post #58
advael wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea definitely, anyone with different preferences from you is just virtue signaling and/or trying to flex on you. Seems super reasonable to me

yall, the line is referencing codegen & docsgen & slopgen; people are putting shit into the ether that neither them nor anyone else is going to read but will just be imbibed by some other agent for some random purpose no one strictly knows.

Aye, and the comment above mine was engaging with the line in a way that begged for mockery nonetheless

Re: Agentic Mfw

#64

Post by goodmythical »

curtisblaine wrote: post #46
thrie8di wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is as "cathartic" as dropping n words everywhere. N this and that, that n president! Author has incestual relationship in their family. At least in my country that is highly offensive. For the sake of their possible children / siblinks, I hope they use protection!

> Author has incestual relationship in their family. Now I want to know in which culture this is used as a common insult.

I'm fairly certain most cultures have common use of incestual insults.

The english "mother fucker" is born of the original taboo of fucking one's mother. The act is seen as bad, so we use the phrase referencing the act as a label for all sorts of bad things. Like, you dropped a book on your foot, and that's as bad as someone who sleeps with their mum, so you say "mother fucker".

Spanish has tu chinga tu madre or just chinga tu madre.

Not sure off the top of my head, but I know there's lots of other cultures that use the same taboo in the same kind of substitional way.

Re: Agentic Mfw

#65

Post by denysvitali »

elmerland wrote: post #52
denysvitali wrote: post #39

As the owner of https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ - I approve

Omg legend! I’m jealous because without LLMs I wouldn’t have the talent to create a site as good as https://thebestmotherfucking.website/ Thank you for your service sir!

I know. It's very difficult nowadays to build a simple HTML page without throwing 15 frameworks in it

Re: Agentic Mfw

#66

Post by viccis »

LPisGood wrote: post #48
viccis wrote: post #35

Funny to read this while I'm at the Snowflake summit, where every single vendor booth, keynote talk, and about 95% of tech talks are exclusively about agentic AI. Sometimes I wonder if everyone here is just pretending to like it because they have to, like a tech prostitute telling their investor john that that AI feature is the best they've ever had, it's so good. During Tuesday's keynote, one of the speakers kept ge…

I keep hearing about the death of SAAS. How real is it, I wonder?

My company has some products that are SaaS-like, insofar as you are basically just paying us for the ability to use our services, and then some that are less SaaS-like insofar as they consist of paying for ongoing work produced by people with extremely sought after expertise. For potential customers in the first category, I'm starting to see them say, we're deciding between you, company X, company Y, and building it ourselves with AI. It's actually now a concern that any proof of value engagements will involve them just scanning the APIs and workflows to use as references for their LLM agents. Meanwhile our other products are not impacted by this at all and AI just helps them scale workloads.

We might see this die down a bit when people realize that the real reasons you don't just roll it yourself is that (a) you're paying the company to do it right and to be able to use an economy of scale to do it cheaper than you might even be able to yourself and (b) the real cost is not to build it but to maintain it.

Re: Agentic Mfw

#67

Post by elmerland »

derangedHorse wrote: post #60

> Here's how open source contributions go down: I clone your repo, point an agent at your test suite, and have it rewrite the whole thing in Rust to a "spec." No copyright infringed, your honor — an agent wrote every line to a clean-room description, and the description was just your code read aloud. The tests were the spec. The spec was theft. Theft was the pipeline. I know this website is tongue-and-cheek but I did…

I agree with you! It's a shock to the system for a lot of folks to have their code base used that way. FOSS is often a labor of love by very smart folks. If it's legal (and the license allows for it), then it's fair game and hard/impossible to stop.

Re: Agentic Mfw

#68

Post by altmanaltman »

advael wrote: post #40
altmanaltman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's also bullshit. "People who read" prefer static sites and not prefer any kind of interactivity is just fetishizing intelligence. Readers don't give a fuck if your site is coded in react or static, most of them dont even know web technology statistically. Projection at its peak

Yea definitely, anyone with different preferences from you is just virtue signaling and/or trying to flex on you. Seems super reasonable to me

Anyone who thinks their preferences translate to their viewers is not being honest with themselves. Developers care if your site is static or not, general visitors and web users do not. There is a reason why static sites are not the norm. You're trying to shoehorn your opinion and generalize it when in reality that's not the true. Thanks for mockery!

Re: Agentic Mfw

#69

Post by advael »

altmanaltman wrote: post #68
advael wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea definitely, anyone with different preferences from you is just virtue signaling and/or trying to flex on you. Seems super reasonable to me

Anyone who thinks their preferences translate to their viewers is not being honest with themselves. Developers care if your site is static or not, general visitors and web users do not. There is a reason why static sites are not the norm. You're trying to shoehorn your opinion and generalize it when in reality that's not the true. Thanks for mockery!

So we've gone from "anyone who expresses this preference is a snob" to "actually what matters is the preferences of some imaginary audience, who I can also speak for"

Fascinating

Re: Agentic Mfw

#70

Post by helloplanets »

teiferer wrote: post #37
helloplanets wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reads a lot like an LLM... Especially this sentence: > Now they're slop, agentic, and on fire — but they get attention, and attention is the only metric left. Welcome to the future, where we have LLMs writing slop rants about LLMs writing slop!

> It reads a lot like an LLM And that my friend was the joke. Achievement unlocked, congrats!

Did you actually catch my drift though?

Something that reads like an LLM wrote it is different from an LLM having written it to begin with. Something written by an LLM can be something that doesn't have the hallmarks of LLM all over it.

I was just saying that the original quote doesn't strike me as something that's an annoyingly good piece of LLM writing.

There's a lot of experimentation happening on how to get LLMs to write well, starting with half of what's been posted on Gwern's blog as of late.

Post reply on HN