Live data from Hacker News

Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

defragzone.substack.com

701–710 of 886 posts

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that LLMs are only going to make people with real tech/programming skills much more in demand, as younger programmers skip straight into prompt engineering and never develop themselves technically beyond the bare minimum needed to glue things together. The gap between people with deep, hands-on experience that understand how a computer works and prompt engineers will become so insanely deep. Somebody needs to…

I think we who are already in tech have this gleeful fantasy that new tools impair newcomers in a way that will somehow serve us, the incumbents, in some way. But in reality pretty much anyone who enters software starts off cutting corners just to build things instead of working their way up from nand gates. And then they backfill their knowledge over time. My first serious foray into software wasn't even Ruby. It wa…

>Why wouldn't this be the case for people using LLM like it was for everyone else?

Because of the mode of interaction.

When you dive into a framework that provides a ton of scaffolding, and "backfill your knowledge over time" (guilty! using Nikola as a SSG has been my entry point to relearn modern CSS, for example), you're forced to proceed by creating your own loop of experimentation and research.

When you interact with an LLM, and use forums to figure out problems the LLM didn't successfully explain to you (about its own output), you're in chat mode the whole time. Even if people are willing to teach you to fish, they won't voluntarily start the lesson, because you haven't shown any interest in it. And the fish are all over the place - for now - so why would you want to learn?

>It's like presuming that StackOverflow will keep you as a question-asker your whole life when nobody here would relate to that.

Of course nobody on HN would relate to that first-hand. But as someone with extensive experience curating Stack Overflow, I can assure you I have seen it second-hand many times.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#702
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I'm pretty sure this already happens and the results are exactly what you'd expect. Some of the "alternate routes" Google Maps has suggested for me in the past are almost certainly due to other people making unscheduled detours for gas or whatever, and the algorithm thinks "oh this random loop on a side street is popular, let's suggest it". And then anyone silly enough to follow the suggestion just adds more…

Google Maps has some strange feedback loops. I frequently drive across the Bay Bridge to Delaware beaches. There are 2 or 3 roughly equal routes with everyone going to the same destination. Google will find a "shorter" route every 5 minutes. Naturally, Maps is smart enough to detect traffic, but not smart enough to equally distribute users to prevent it. It creates a traffic jam on route A, then tells all the users t…

It hadn't even occurred to me that there are places where enough people are using Google Maps while driving to cause significant impact on traffic patterns. Being car-free (and smartphone-free) really gives a different perspective.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#703
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If benchmark means anything in evaluating how model capability progress, the evidence is that all the existing benchmark have been pretty much solved, except FrontierMath ( https://epoch.ai/frontiermath )

I recently saw Sam Altman bragging about OpenAI's performance on Codeforces (leetcode-like website), which I consider just about the worst benchmark possible. 1. All problems are small- the prompt and solution ( 2. Solving those problems is more about recollecting patterns and less about good new insights. Now, top level human competitors do need original thinking, but that's only because our memory is too small to s…

Altman spouts even more bullshit than his models, if that’s even possible.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#704
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg, as always, is well known for making excellent business decisions that lead to greater sector buy in. The Metaverse is going great.

Really, that's what you're going with, arguing against the business acumen of the world's second richest person, and the only one at that scale with individual majority control over their company? As for the Metaverse, it was always intended as a very long-term play which is very early to be judged, but as an owner of a Quest headset, it's already going great for me.

Have you heard the term survivorship bias? Billionaires got so rich by being outliers, for better or worse. Even if they were guaranteed to be the best just going all in with one action in their portfolio isn't even what their overall strategy. Zuckerberg can afford to blow a few billion on a flop because it is only about 2% of his net worth. Notably, even he while poised and groomed for overconfidence by past successes and yes-men doesn't trust his own business acumen all that much!

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't this be the case for people using LLM like it was for everyone else? I feel like it's a bit different this time because LLMs aren't just an abstraction. To make an analogy: Ruby on Rails serves a similar role as highways—it's a quick path to get where you're going, but once you learn the major highways in a metro area you can very easily break out and explore and learn the surface streets. LLMs are a G…

> LLMs are a GPS, not a highway. They tell you what to do and where to go It still gives you code you can inspect. There is no black box. Curious people will continue being curious.

The problem is that coders taking this approach are dominantly ones who lack the relevant skill - ones who are taking that approach because they lack that skill.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we who are already in tech have this gleeful fantasy that new tools impair newcomers in a way that will somehow serve us, the incumbents, in some way. But in reality pretty much anyone who enters software starts off cutting corners just to build things instead of working their way up from nand gates. And then they backfill their knowledge over time. My first serious foray into software wasn't even Ruby. It wa…

At present, LLMs are basically Stack Overflow with infinite answers on demand... of Stack Overflow quality and relevance. Prompting is the new Googling. It's a critical base skill, but it's not sufficient. The models I've tried aren't that great at algorithm design. They're abysmal at generating highly specific, correct code (e.g. kernel drivers, consensus protocols, locking constructs.) They're good plumbers. A lot…

>The models I've tried aren't that great at algorithm design. They're abysmal at generating highly specific, correct code (e.g. kernel drivers, consensus protocols, locking constructs.) They're good plumbers. A lot of programming is plumbing, so I'm happy to have the help, but they have trouble doing actual computer science.

I tend towards tool development, so this suggests a fringe benefit of LLMs to me: if my users are asking LLMs to help with a specific part of my API, I know that's the part that sucks and needs to be redesigned.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#708

Every generation sees a new technology that old timers loudly worry "will destroy programming as a profession". I'm old enough to remember when that new and destructive technology was Java, and the greybeards were all heavily invested in inline assembly as an essential skill of the serious programmer. The exact same 3 steps in the article happened about a decade ago during the "javascript bootcamp" craze, and while t…

Technically, we automated most programing when we got rid of punch cards and created assembly languages.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little evidence that AI is replacing engineers, but there is a whole lot of evidence that shareholders and execs really love the idea and are trying every angle to achieve it.

> execs really love the idea and are trying every angle to achieve it. reminds me of the offshoring hype in the early 2000's. Where it worked, it worked well but it wasn't the final solution for all of software development that many CEOs wanted it to be.

Yep. It has the same rhyme of the worst case being 'wishes made by fools' too where they don't realize that they themselves don't truly know what to ask for, so getting exactly what they asked for ruins them.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difference here being that you actually learned the information about Ruby on Rails, whereas the modern programmer doesn't learn anything. They are but a clipboard-like vessel that passes information from an LLM onto a text editor, rarely ever actually reading and understanding the code. And if something doesn't work, they don't debug the code, they debug the LLM for not getting it right. The actual knowledge here ne…

Difference here being that you actually learned the information about computers, whereas the modern programmer doesn't learn anything. They are but a typist-like vessel that passes information from an architect onto a text editor, rarely ever actually reading and understanding the compiled instructions. And if something doesn't work, they don't debug the machine code, they complain about the compiler for not getting…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN