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

StableCode

stability.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: StableCode

#81

Post by shafyy »

smoldesu wrote: post #58
pylua wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s about giving the domain experts who understand what the requirements should be a way to build something without having to have the domain knowledge of code.

I think the problem with that is the same reason why "no code" platforms struggle to succeed. Writing software without understanding control flow or libraries or APIs is practically impossible. Instead of being a liberating experience like it should be, it becomes a confining and frustrating one where you don't understand what is and isn't possible. LLMs will work really well when developers know what they want and h…

I've worked a fair amount with a client that was using a no-code platform (Bubble) and I agree. These platforms make it easy to get started, but quickly their users get stuck at problems that would take me 2 lines of code to solve, but they just get stuck at the glass walls of the no-code platform.

Now, is it still better that no-code platforms exists and give non-technical people the chance to get started? Yes, probably. But the transition path is not clear to me, since no-code platforms don't want their users to move on. So, naturally, they evolve to do more and more complex stuff, which in turn makes their whole platform more complicated and scares off their very target audience.

So now, you need to hire agencies and "no-code developers" to work on your no-code app. Back at square one.

I can see the same story playing out with AI-based coding. If you don't know coding, AI-based coding is just a layer on top of a no-code platform.

Re: StableCode

#82

Post by Mystery-Machine »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #80
voxl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in what world is a hashtable lookup worst case O(1)? Your own solution doesn't match your requirements. If you want amortized complexity then a simple vector suffices.

1. I like toxic comments like that saying something is simple without actually solving the problem, you're the best. 2. The average complexity to search, insert, and delete data in a hash table is O(1), for interviews it works 99% of the time. 3. There is alternative O(1) solution you're looking for, I'll leave this exercise to you, bro. As well as the other exercise of being less toxic and a bit more respectful to p…

Average and big-O notation don't go together... Yes, it works 99% of the time, but parent explained to you why you won't get that 1% of the offers. That, plus taking offence by his comment, which makes you not pass behavioral part of the interview.

Re: StableCode

#83

Post by fruit2020 »

yohannparis wrote: post #9
runako wrote: post #6

Is this a "product" that one could install and use or a model that one should expect an OEM to integrate into a product before programmers can use it? I'm asking because I don't see any links that would help me figure out how to try it out.

To be honest, you’d better buy GitHub co-pilot and enjoy the productivity boost at a cheap price. Trying to download/install/setup/use StableCode is worth it only if you want to learn all those steps as well. If what you care is the final result, just buy an existing service.

I didn’t have a good experience with copilot. It was ok for some auto completions, but I found it very distracting to correct it many times when it didn’t do well. It’s like it interrupted my flow. Maybe there is a shortcut to enable it on demand rather than always on, but it wasn’t obvious in the Jetbrains plugin

Re: StableCode

#84

Post by mavili »

Uptrenda wrote: post #52

> People of every background will soon be able to create code to solve their everyday problems and improve their lives using AI, and we’d like to help make this happen Yeah, this is not going to happen. Anyone who has ever tried to gather requirements for software knows that users don't know what they want (clients especially lmao.) The language they use won't be detailed enough to create anything meaningful. Do you…

I agree the claim isn't going to happen.

> Which rather begs the question: who the hell is the audience for this?

In my opinion audience for code-generation AI are developers, not the general public. It's immensely useful to be assisted by AI to autocomplete and suggest my code. Whether that is because I'm not familiar with a language syntax or just don't have all the language API in my head.

The general public isn't going to have a clue how to put things together, and until AI can generate reliable and fully functioning code I doubt this is ever going to be for the general public. AI right now is essentially the combination of Google+StackOverflow for me but in a much faster pace. Instead of browsing through tens of SO questions and Google links to get to the exact situation I'm in I can just prompt the AI with all the details and get one response that has the answer to my problem, usually!

Re: StableCode

#85

Post by MyAccountYo »

I have thought about how these tools can be useful quite a lot. I have a prompt I can feed chat gpt and it will create whole feature "skeletons" with my naming rules and architecture quirks. Taking a lot of time from getting started when building something new. But with chat it is still too inconvenient, having something like this integrated in the ide via a script would he more convenient but still a very specific use case.

I think what I want is this idea of "code completion" but not for writing the methods, which is the easy part. Instead the tool should structure classes and packages and modules and naming and suggest better ways to write certain things.

Re: StableCode

#86

Post by mavili »

quadrature wrote: post #72
Uptrenda wrote: post #52

> People of every background will soon be able to create code to solve their everyday problems and improve their lives using AI, and we’d like to help make this happen Yeah, this is not going to happen. Anyone who has ever tried to gather requirements for software knows that users don't know what they want (clients especially lmao.) The language they use won't be detailed enough to create anything meaningful. Do you…

This is already happening. It’s true that they won’t know how to exactly specify their needs. But they can share input and output examples and iterate on the solution. I know folks without any programming background using ChatGPT to write code for them. The code doesn’t work right off the bat but by iterating with the agent they can either get a solution or solve a portion of the problem.

if you mean things like "write me Python code to read a file and count all occurrences of a word" then all cool. Good luck with something like "write me some Java code for Android to send a message to an app user"

Re: StableCode

#87

Post by maze-le »

pphysch wrote: post #68
abi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point: Natural language can be much a higher layer of abstraction than the programming languages we currently have. It's much faster to say "Add a button to download the output as a PDF" than write JS directly. You'd be surprised by what regular people can build when you give them the power to create software. Here are a bunch of apps created using my tool/GPT-4: https://showcase.picoapps.xyz Most…

Sure, they can "build" it, but can they maintain it? Can they only add more layers of mud? How do you refactor the statement "Add a button to download the output as a PDF"? That's not a replacement for software engineering.

I thought about this for a while now and I think for the class of problems GP is referring to, no maintenance will actually be needed, the tools will just be discarded re-written again -- at least in one-man projects where no other person than the author is needed to create the tool. Maybe in the future some kind of pseudo-code between real code and natural language will be established. This kind of pseudo-code could be as expressive as code but more concise than natural language. I am not certain if it will ever replace actual software engineers for scopes beyond on-man projects.

Re: StableCode

#88

Post by elisharobinson »

Uptrenda wrote: post #52

> People of every background will soon be able to create code to solve their everyday problems and improve their lives using AI, and we’d like to help make this happen Yeah, this is not going to happen. Anyone who has ever tried to gather requirements for software knows that users don't know what they want (clients especially lmao.) The language they use won't be detailed enough to create anything meaningful. Do you…

Assuming that the requirement quality is a constant . And humans as system have the ability to compile this high level instruction to low level code. now imagine there exists systems which A. Augments human ability making it more efficient. or B. replace humans completely. The only reason this is valuable is that it might POTENTIALLY reduces the $/hr cost of the system.

Re: StableCode

#89

Post by quadrature »

mavili wrote: post #86
quadrature wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already happening. It’s true that they won’t know how to exactly specify their needs. But they can share input and output examples and iterate on the solution. I know folks without any programming background using ChatGPT to write code for them. The code doesn’t work right off the bat but by iterating with the agent they can either get a solution or solve a portion of the problem.

if you mean things like "write me Python code to read a file and count all occurrences of a word" then all cool. Good luck with something like "write me some Java code for Android to send a message to an app user"

Agreed. The space of “read a file and X” problems is huge though and it’s been awesome seeing folks solve these themselves.

Re: StableCode

#90

Post by redox99 »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #46

Is it good at algos? From interviews: Implement queue that supports three methods: * push * pop * peek(i) peek returns element by its index. All three methods should have O(1) complexity [write code in Ruby]. ChatGPT wasn't able to solve that last time I tried https://twitter.com/romanpushkin/status/1617037136364199938

GPT4 made a mistake on its first try, but after asking what the complexity of pop is, it figured out its mistake and fixed it.

https://chat.openai.com/share/d527f65f-8a6d-4602-acab-4d80ed...

Post reply on HN