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

Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 765 posts

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#631

Post by whiplash451 »

simonw wrote: post #52
jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

"Jobs are going to be lost unless there's somehow a demand for more applications." That's why I'm not worried. There is already SO MUCH more demand for code than we're able to keep up with. Show me a company that doesn't have a backlog a mile long where most of the internal conversations are about how to prioritize what to build next. I think LLM assistance makes programmers significantly more productive, which makes…

The main problem is that engineers in the Western world wont get to see the benefits themselves because a lot of Western companies will outsource the work to AI-enabled, much more effective developers in India.

India and Eastern EU will win far more (relatively) than expensive devs in the US or Western EU.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#632

Post by krm01 »

dambi0 wrote: post #629
Gunnerhead wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, there’s absolutely zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights.

Asking whether someone should be free isn’t just about human rights It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.

the topic is if a generalised group of people should be free. There's no context needed. The answer is a simple yes by default.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#633

Post by jspdown »

rybosworld wrote: post #527
tokioyoyo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very sorry, but the goalposts are moving so far ahead now, that's it's very hard to keep track of. 6 months ago the same comments were saying "AI generated code is complete garbage is useless, and I have to rewrite everything all the time anyways". Now we're onto "need to prompt, apply patch, verify" and etc. Come on guys, time to look at it a bit objectively, and decide where we're going with it.

Couldn't agree more. Every time these systems get better, there are dozens of comments to the effect of "ya but...[insert something ai isn't great at yet]". It's a bit maddening to see this happening on a forum full of tech-literate folks. Ultimately, I think to stay relevant in software development, we are going to have accept that our role in the process could evolve to humans essentially never writing code. Take t…

Regarding job security, in maybe 10 years (human and companies are slow to adapt), I think this revolution will force us to choose between mostly 2 career paths:

- The product engineer: highly if not completely AI driven. The human supervises it by writing specification and making sure the outcome is correct. A domain expert fluent in AI guidance.

- The tech expert: Maintain and develop systems that can't legally be developed by AI. Will have to stay very sharp and master it's craft. Adopting AI for them won't help in this career path.

If the demand for new products continue to rise, most of us will be in the first category. I think choosing one of these branch early will define whether you will be employed.

That's how I see it. I wish I can stay in the second group.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#634

Post by dambi0 »

krm01 wrote: post #632
dambi0 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking whether someone should be free isn’t just about human rights It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.

the topic is if a generalised group of people should be free. There's no context needed. The answer is a simple yes by default.

So every generalisable group should be free?

Would you include single member groups?

What precisely is your definition of freedom.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#635

Post by jspdown »

fofoz wrote: post #77

When these models succeed in building a whole program and a whole system then the software industry that creates products and services will disappear. Any person and any organization will create from scratch the software they need perfectly customized to their needs and the AI system will evolve it over time. At most they will have to cooperate on communication protocols. In my opinion we are less than 5 years away f…

I don't think organization will be able to do this themselves. Transforming vague ideas into a product requires an intermediary step, a step that is already part of our daily job. I don't see this step going away before a very long time.

Non-tech people have the tools to create website for a long time, though, they still hire people to do this. I'm not talking about complex websites, just static web pages.

There will simply be less jobs that there is today.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#636

Post by stavros »

brianstrimp wrote: post #616
anotherpaulg wrote: post #61

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 It's definitely possible for AI to do a large fraction of your coding, and for it to contribute significantly to "improving itself". As an example, aider currently writes about 70% of the new code in each of its releases. I automatically track and share this stat as graph [0] with aider's release notes. Before Sonnet, most releases were less than…

> It's definitely possible for AI to do a large fraction of your coding, and for it to contribute significantly to "improving itself". As an example, aider currently writes about 70% of the new code in each of its releases. That number itself is not saying much. Let's say I have an academic article written in Word (yeah, I hear some fields do it like that). I get feedback, change 5 sentences, save the file. Then 20k…

That's pretty reaching though if you're comparing an AI to a formatter. Presumably 70% of a new Aider release isn't formatting.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#637

Post by freilanzer »

root_axis wrote: post #380
danielbln wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying sentience cannot emerge from a few amino acids tumbled together, yet here we are. There is a lot of higher dimensional information encoded in those "text and images scraped off the internet". I still don't think that's enough for AGI (or ASI) but we know a lot of very complex things that are made of simple parts.

> That's like saying sentience cannot emerge from a few amino acids No, it's not at all the same thing. We have great evidence that life exists. We have great evidence that amino acids can lead to life. None of that is true of "AGI" or text scraped off the internet.

OTOH, text and images have only been around for a little while. The real question is whether text and images can contain enough information for AGI, or a physical world to interact with is needed.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#638

Post by Kiro »

Gunnerhead wrote: post #597
troad wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When ChatGPT first came out I got a kick out of asking it whether people deserve to be free, whether Germans deserve to be free, and whether Palestinians deserve to be free. The answers were roughly "of course!" and "of course!" and "oh ehrm this is very complex actually". While this is very amusing, it's obvious why this is. There's a lot more context behind one of those phrases than the others. Just like "Black L…

Sorry, there’s absolutely zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights.

And if you ask any model they will of course agree with that. That's not the question it answers "it's complicated" to though.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#639

Post by monsieurbanana »

throwu2728828 wrote: post #486
monsieurbanana wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he meant is that if this really happens, and LLMs replaces humans everywhere and everybody becomes unemployed, congratulations you'll be fine. Because at that point there's 2 scenarios: - LLMs don't need humans anymore and we're either all dead or in a matrix-like farm - Or companies realize they can't make LLMs buy the stuff their company is selling (with what money??) so they still need people to have disposab…

The scenario that is worrying is having to deal with the jagged frontier of intelligence prolonging the hurt. i.e 202X: SWE is solved 202X + Y; Y In this case, I can't retrain before the second threshold but also can't idle. I just have to suffer. I'm prepared to, but it's hard to escape fleshy despair.

There's actually something you can do, that I don't think will become obsolete anytime soon.

Work on your soft skills. Join a theater club, debate club, volunteer to speak at events, ...

Not that it's easy, and certainly more difficult for some people than for others, but the truth is that soft skills already dominate engineering, and in a world where LLMs replace coders they would become more important. Companies have people at the top, and those people don't like talking to computers. That is not going to change until those people get replaced.

Re: Promising results from DeepSeek R1 for code

#640

Post by nuancebydefault »

jeswin wrote: post #31

> 99% of the code in this PR [for llama.cpp] is written by DeekSeek-R1 I hope we can put to rest the argument that LLMs are only marginally useful in coding - which are often among the top comments on many threads. I suppose these arguments arise from (a) having used only GH copilot which is the worst tool, or (b) not having spent enough time with the tool/llm, or (c) apprehension. I've given up responding to these.…

AI will only ever be able to develop what it is asked/prompted for. The question is often ill formed, resulting in an app that does not do what you want. So the prompt needs to be updated, the result needs to be evaluated and tweaks need to be done to the code with or without help of AI.

In fact, from a distance seen, the software development pattern in AI times stays the same as it was pre-AI, pre-SO, pre-IDE as well as pre-internet.

Just to say, sw developers will still be sw developers.

Post reply on HN