71–80 of 182 posts
Would love to hear folks' experience around "managing" all this new code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do-I think this is a great example of how AI can be helpful. We see so many stories about how terrible AI coding is. We need more practical stories of how it can help.
The tool itself would be of a lot of use in school science and design labs where a bunch of older kit lands from universities and such. I used to put a lot of floppy to usb converters on things like old ir spectrometers that were good enough still for school use.
I’m teaching kids in Bayview how to code using AI tools. I’m trying to figure out the best way to do it without losing anything in between.
With my pilot students I’ve found the ones I gave cursor are outperforming the ones who aren’t using AI.
Not just with deliverables, but with fundamental knowledge(what is a function?).
Small sample size so I don’t want to make proclamations… but I think a generation learning how to code with these tools is going to be unstoppable.
I recently discovered that some of the Raspberry Pi models support the Linux Kernel's "Gadget Mode". This allows you to configure the Pi to appear as some type of device when plugged into a USB port, i.e. a Mass Storage/USB stick, Network Card, etc. Very nifty for turning a Pi Zero into various kinds of utilities. When I realized this was possible, I wanted to set up a project that would allow me to use the Pi as a b…
Please, I would be delighted if you published that code... Just yesterday I was thinking that a two-faced Samba share/USB Mass Storage dongle Pi would save me a lot of shuttling audio samples between my desktop and my Akai MPC.
I recently discovered that some of the Raspberry Pi models support the Linux Kernel's "Gadget Mode". This allows you to configure the Pi to appear as some type of device when plugged into a USB port, i.e. a Mass Storage/USB stick, Network Card, etc. Very nifty for turning a Pi Zero into various kinds of utilities. When I realized this was possible, I wanted to set up a project that would allow me to use the Pi as a b…
I can have the LLMs build me custom bash scripts or make me my own Obsidian plugins.
They're all little cogs in my own workflow. None of these individual components are complex, but putting all of them together would have taken me ages previously.
Now I can just drop all of them into the conversation and ask it for a new script that works with them to do X.
Here's an example where I built a custom screenshot hosting tool for my blog:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cooked People using this phrase should probably stop, it's become extremely tiresome as a cliche
Im guessing "cooked" means the opposite of "based" ? but I could be a Feynman radian out on those vectors in leet space.
As a mostly LLM-skeptic I reluctantly agree this is something AI actually does well. When approaching unfamiliar territory, LLMs (1) use simple language (improvement over academia but also much professional intentionally obfuscated literature), (2) use the right abstraction (they seem good at ”zooming out” to big picture of things, and (3) you can move both laterally between topics and ”zoom in” quickly. Another way…
My experience is instead that LLMs (those I used) can be helpful there where solutions are quite well known (e.g. a standard task in some technology used by many), and terrible where the problem has not been tackled much by the public. About language (point (1)), I get a lot of "hypnotism for salesmen to non technical managers and roundabout comments" (e.g. "which wire should I cut, I have a red one and a blue one" /…
Very much so (I should have added this as a downside in the original comment). Before I even ask a question I ask myself "does it have training data on this?". Also, having a bad answer is only one failure mode. More commonly, I find that it drifts towards the "center of gravity", i.e. the mainstream or most popular school of thought, which is like talking to someone with a strong status-quo bias. However, before you've familiarized yourself with a new domain, the "current state of things" is a pretty good bargain to learn fast, at least for my brain.
> I am now at a real impasse, towards the end of my career and knowing I could happily start it all again with a new insight and much bigger visions for what I could take on. It feels like wining the lottery two weeks before you die I envy this optimistic. I am not the opposite (im a sr engineer with more than 15 years of experience), but I am scared about my future. I invested too much time in learning concepts, the…
But if the advancement moves too slowly, we will have some serious pipeline problems filling senior engineer positions, caused by the destruction that AI (combined with the end of ZIRP) has caused to job prospects for entry level software engineers.
When it comes to some personal projects, I've written a slew of them since AI coding tools got quite good. I'm primarily a backend developer, and while I've done quite a bit of frontend dev, I'm relatively slow at it, and I'm especially slow as CSS. AI has completely removed this bottleneck for me. Often times if I'm coding up a frontend, I'll literally just say "Ok, now make it pretty with a modern-looking UI", and it does a decent job, and anything I need to fix is an understandable change that I can do quickly. So now I'll whip up nice little "personal tool" apps in literally like 30 mins, where in the past I would have spent 30 mins just trying to figure out some CSS voodoo about why it's so hard to get a button centered.
But in my job, where I also use AI relatively frequently, it is great for helping to learn new things, but when I've tried to use it for things like large scale, repo-wide refactorings it's usually been a bit of a PITA - reviewing all of the code and fixing it's somewhat subtle mistakes often feels like it's slower than doing it myself.
It that sense, I think it's reasonable to consider AI like a competent junior developer (albeit at "junior developer" level across every technology ever invented). I can give a junior developer a "targeted" task, and they usually do a good job, even if I have to fix something here or there. But when I give them larger tasks that cross many components or areas of concern, that's often where they struggle mightily as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just aren’t delving deep enough. For every problem that stops you, ask the LLM. With enough context it’ll give you at least a mediocre way to get around your problem. It’s still a lot of hard work. But the only person that can stop yourself is you. (Which it looks like you’ve done.) List the reasons you’ve stopped below and I’ll give you prompts to get around them.
It's true that once you have learned enough to tell the LLM exactly what answer you want, it can repeat it back to you verbatim. The question is how far short of that you should stop because the LLM is no longer an efficient way to make progress.
Theres no way it will "fall short".
You just have to improve your prompt. In the worst case scenario you can say "please list out all the different research angles I should proceed from here and which of these might most likely yield a useful result for me"