I'd rather read the prompt • Hacker News Board

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#771

Post by godelski » Mon, May 05, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

lucianbr wrote: post #613

godelski wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't fix the problem by making better choices as individuals That's wildly inaccurate. Your logic necessitates that "the system" is not composed of individuals. The problem itself was created through individual actions...

> Ultimately we can't change this behavior if no one is willing to defect from "conventional wisdom" To me it reads as if you're contradicting yourself. It can be plainly seen that almost nobody is willing to defect. So change is impossible, you claim. Also change is possible, you claim. Which is it? You think people will change their choices as a result of you writing this comment and "winning" the argument? I agree…

There's no contradiction.

  > So change is impossible, you claim

I claim the opposite. Just because few people defect doesn't mean that rate is fixed and immutable. That is where you misunderstand. Really, my comment is a "call to arms". It is a literally a plea to ask people of HN, including you, to become the change we all want to see. Follow your own logic. You have given up and are trying to justify it.

You are not mindless automata.

You have a choice.

Your actions matter.

Things have changed before, they can change again.

Every big problem is composed of many small problems.

We programmers are experts in breaking complex things down. Sure, fixing one small problem doesn't solve the big problem, but they do add up. That's all I'm arguing. I'm asking that others stop being apathetic and defeatist, to get up, and continue. I'm extending my hand, will you take it? There's more of us making effort, will you help?

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#772

Post by tptacek » Mon, May 05, 2025, 5:58 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #751

tptacek wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this responds to what I just wrote. Can you engage with the question I asked directly? Thanks!

You asked: > As a team lead, what would you think of a team member who consistently generated "crap" pull requests? This is directly answered with my first paragraph: that's exactly what I would think of them, and how I would act on it. Your first question was: > How is that better? In the second paragraph, I explained why it's better to do a code review for a crappy pull request that's human-produced vs LLM-generate…

Jim and Toby are interviewing Darryl Philbin for the position of manager at Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Jim asks what Darryl would do to resolve a conflict between two employees in the warehouse Darryl already managed. "I'll answer that, Jim. I would use it as an opportunity to teach... about actions... and consequences of actions".

That's the answer you just gave me. Good note! (Darryl didn't get the job.)

You're dodging my point. If you are managing a team where people are using LLMs to generate pull requests full of "crap" code (your word), you have a mismanaged team, and would with or without the LLMs, because on a well-managed team people don't create PRs full of crap code.

I'm fine if you want to say LLMs are dangerous tools in the hands of unseasoned developers. Fine, you can have a rule where only trusted developers get to use them. That actually seems pretty sane!

But a trustworthy developer using an LLM isn't going to be pushed by the LLM into creating "crap" PRs, because the LLM doesn't make the PRs, the developer does. If the developer isn't reading the code the LLM is producing, they're not doing their job.

Sometimes you get people saying "ok but reading that code is work so how is the LLM saving any time", which is something you could also say about adding any human developer to a team; their code also has to get reviewed.

So help me understand how your concerns here cohere.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#773

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:15 PM UTC

ChadNauseam wrote: post #358

jameshart wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve come across this analogy that I think works well: Using an LLM to do schoolwork is like taking a forklift to the gym. If all we were interested in was moving the weights around, you’d be right to use a tool to help you. But we’re doing this work for the effect it will have on you . The reason a teacher asks you a question is not because they don’t know the answer.

If students went to college only to learn, colleges wouldn't bother giving diplomas. Compare: My piano teacher doesn't give diplomas because none of her students would care, her students actually want to learn. When my piano teacher cancels class, I am disappointed because I wanted to learn. My piano teacher doesn't need to threaten me with bad grades to get me to practice outside of class (analogous to homework), be…

I think several orthogonal concepts are touched in this.

1. Students given bad incentives to be thrown into a system with a completely different purpose than their main goal. Then those jobs turning face to suddenly say "schools teach you nothing" and even refuse to hire the newest generation.

2. Students in general not being stimulated by primary school and given direction and vision on what to do in life. Simply being pushed by parents to "be successful".

3. The crippling reality as of late that a job doesn't even guarantee keeling a roof over your head anymore. Leading to discouragement to even bother trying.

4. Connected to #2, the decline of various apprenticeships, internships (which are now a college recruiting pipeline), and other ways to invest in employees. Even if they complain about new grad output, they are still content outsourcing such training instead of investing in their employees for a career.

There's a lot of systems failing which can arguably cause an entire collapse in the country. Then no one will get an opportunity to properly learn.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#774

Post by bumby » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:16 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #769

bumby wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I brought up that I think the root problem is employers in a different comment, so I’m not missing that point.[1] The distinction is that I don’t think it’s a dichotomous problem. While colleges may not be the root problem, they can still be a contributor to the problem. (Besides, if an employer is to recognize a MOOC, that course completion has to be documented, which means it’s just another version of credential) […

I was responding to the comment you wrote. But I also disagree with the other one. It is a confounding variable[0]. The problem with trying to go after the confounding variable is you 1) don't solve the problem after fixing it 2) let's the current negative feedback loop continue growing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

Nobody ever claimed the best fix is going after the proximate cause and not touching the root cause. That’s a narrative you contrived. I’m in favor of fixing both (which is how systemic improvements ought to work).

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#775

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

patrickmay wrote: post #119

tomjen3 wrote: post #34

I wish the author had state out right that they were not using LLMs much, since their opinion on them and their output has no value (its a new technology, and different enough that you do have to spend some time with them in order to be able to find out what value they have for your particluar work[0]. The is especially the case when you are about to complain about style, since that can easily be adjusted, by simply…

If an LLM is better at writing than you are, you should work on improving your writing. This is especially true for students.

LLMs improve faster than I do.

Anyway its like getting better at running because bicycles became a thing: a) pretty soon you are not going to be able to keep up and b) you are better of buying one anyway.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#776

Post by betterThanTexas » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

alexvitkov wrote: post #715

klibertp wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has value because a student can only get it by learning and problem-solving. No. That's how it should be, but the reality looks different: it has value because it shows that someone spent 3+ years doing what they were told to do, enduring all the absurdities they were subjected to in the meantime. Whatever means they used to cheat don't matter, since they still worked on what someone told them to and produced re…

This is a very bold statement, you should consider substantiating it at least a little, maybe give just one example on what those absurdities collee students have to endure are, that prove they're good corporate drones? From what I remember it was 4 years of learning stuff I signed up to learn, occasionally being quizzed on said stuff, and then they gave me a paper that claims I know the stuff.

I'm not saying a college CAN'T provide an education, but it IS a little ridiculous you can't just test pass four years of regurgitating textbooks. Ideally for a fraction of the cost.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#777

Post by Aurornis » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

jampekka wrote: post #532

const_cast wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could save $60,000 and do that online for free, probably more efficiently. Not to burst yours or anyone else's bubble, but no, probably not. The hard part of learning isn't access to content, it's discipline and dedication. School provides structure, goals, timelines, and deliverables. The value of this cannot be understated. I've heard from many people how they're going to learn programming online and then get a…

I'm teaching faculty at a university and, at least where it comes to lecture courses, I don't find this a bubble. There are definitely plenty of students who would do just fine, if not even better, without the external discipline and structure. And even more those who could do it with something like a MOOC or just a posted curriculum. And to be able to work without an external discipline is IMHO one of the main learn…

> I'm teaching faculty at a university and, at least where it comes to lecture courses, I don't find this a bubble. There are definitely plenty of students who would do just fine, if not even better, without the external discipline and structure.

I don't understand how you can make this claim based on observing students who are in an environment with discipline and structure.

I thoroughly believed this to be true when I was younger. I thought the explosion of the internet and availability of free course materials, videos, MOOCs, and any information you want was going to change the education game forever.

What finally changed my mind was when I became a hiring manager. I decided I'd give an interview to almost every self-taught developer who applied. If someone didn't have a college degree listed on their resume, I'd schedule a call to hear their story. I thought I was going to be uncovering diamonds in the rough that other companies overlooked.

With a few notable exceptions, it did not work out that way. Don't get me wrong: A couple of the self-taught developers were absolutely brilliant. However, I found that most were, to be blunt, not even progressing their intra-career knowledge as fast as peers with traditional backgrounds. We hired a few, but a common theme was that they needed more guidance for dealing with the structure and expectations of an office job.

I also had a few very above-average friends in high school who went the self-education route. "College is a waste of money" mindset. Voracious readers in their youth. Last I checked, both of them were bouncing from entry-level job to job.

Of course, there are students who go to paper-mill colleges who also learn very little.

I think the value of a demanding, structured college education is partially the education, but largely about learning how to learn. Learning how to deliver, learning how to operate on a schedule, and having some structure to check your understanding relative to peers. Almost everyone I know (including me!) who does self-studying reading thinks their understanding is better than it is right up until they have to apply it, at which point they realize they didn't understand it as deeply as they thought. It's easy to read course materials and think "That makes sense" because it's logically consistent, but integrating the knowledge in a way that you can apply it and reason about it is harder. Structured learning forces people to do the latter, whereas self-guided learning leaves it as an exercise for the reader. An exercise that many don't follow up on.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#778

Post by johnnyanmac » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

vishnugupta wrote: post #723

nine_k wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a medieval guild, to be admitted as a master, an apprentice had to create a chef d'oevre, or masterpiece, so called for this reason. In the computer engineering industry, you increasingly have to demonstrate the same: either as a part of your prior work for hire, or a side project, or a contribution to something open-source. A diploma is still a useful signal, but not sufficient, except maybe for very junior posit…

I was somewhat aware that in medieval period most started out as an apprentice in mid teens. Essentially work slaves in the house of a master. Then after a decade or so of toiling and gaining the skill they would go on to become individual business owners. But I wasn’t aware about the master peace. Thank you for sharing that!

Well you see the obvious difference. They actually trained people for the job. Even if it was under the guise of child labor.

We simply stopped doing that. A decade of apprenticeship reduced down to 3 months of shadowing during summer.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#779

Post by betterThanTexas » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

ozim wrote: post #542

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soon? I hire people now and where they went to school means little to me. The first priority is “can they do the work?” which is a niche programming. After that is established, I barely take note of school. I don’t personally count a CS degree as an indication the person is a good programmer, or thinks logically, or has good work ethic.

Problem is you most likely don’t have that big operation. For company I work for we hire 1 dev per year and I believe last year we did not even hire a single person. So I do have time to check up the candidate do 3 rounds each 1 hr so that candidates can see what company are we and what person is the candidate. We also are small company so we don’t get that many applicants anyway. I cannot imagine how it goes when so…

You could just as easily filter by having a github repo. It doesn't even need to be active or very full. Hell, that would also filter out a lot of people with college degrees! Might even save you time.

In my experience, only very large and bureaucratic institutions (governments, schools) really demand degrees and certifications.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#780

Post by ajmurmann » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:22 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #753

ajmurmann wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think software developers might be somewhat of an outlier. Industry wants good programmers but universities teach computer science which really should be called "computation science". Much of what we learn in university will hardly ever be used while many practical skills are at best learned as a side effect. Dijkstra favorite said that computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes. S…

> while many practical skills are at best learned as a side effect. I strongly disagree, that’s the intent not a side effect. It’s IMO a common misconception that early algorithm classes are just designed around learning algorithms. Instead basic algorithms are the simplest thing to turn abstract requirements into complex code. The overwhelming majority of what students learn are the actual tools of programming, debu…

Interesting. I did my undergraduate in Germany and my graduate in the US, so my experience might be unusual here and different from what you get in the US. My undergraduate algorithms classes in Germany and my advanced algorithms classes in the US involved zero actual coding. It was all pseudocode as you'd find in the Knuth books or in Cormen, Leiserson and Rivest.