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

Don't you mean extinct?

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#81

Post by majormajor »

ChiperSoft wrote: post #53

This analogy has layers that OP probably doesn't recognize. The film industry loves cgi because none of the digital vfx houses are unionized and they can treat the artists like crap. It severely devalued a ton of skilled labor around miniature and set design. Now, after 20 years of hard swing into cgi, people are starting to recognize just how much better movies from the practical era looked, and there is a push back…

You can have the most everyday-setting movie or TV show imaginable and still have it VFX'd to hell and back compared to something shot on film 30 years ago. Not even just like Ted Lasso faking the stadiums/fields they were on, but just retouching every single little thing.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#82

Post by archagon »

Fordec wrote: post #36
stickfigure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? Customer meaningful features that move the needle on the business. I think this is strictly true. And not because LLMs can write code faster. I think it's true even if you're still writing most of your code by hand and using the LLM as an assistant. My anecdotal but decades-long observation is that most of the time=cost of a project comes not from writing code, but…

And I am gradually coming to the conclusion that "needle" isn't even features. In a world where everyone has AI access, moving the needle in an existing product space can readily be done by whoever. The real game changers will be those who redefine their market segment entirely rendering existing offering completely out of customer demand. And the only way to migrate the business to the new model from the ground up i…

> My hobby AI projects feature wise match existing company offerings in about a week of turn around.

Another thing that LLMs are particularly good at is instilling their users with a false sense of confidence.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#83

Post by archagon »

socalgal2 wrote: post #70
singpolyma3 wrote: post #2

I mostly like this article but > Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much Seems like a silly and needlessly aggressive take. Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? I've never been evaluated on volume in my life. Nor have co workers who were severely "behind" ever feared for their jobs.

* Those who refuse to use a calculator over a slide-rule will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much * Those who refuse to use a spreadsheet over calculator and paper will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much * Those who refuse to use a truck over horse drawn wagon will fall behind because they won't be able to carry as much Seems pretty common sense to me, rathern than aggress…

AI is not an abstraction. None of those tools are stochastic decision makers.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#84

Post by archagon »

bitwize wrote: post #27
singpolyma3 wrote: post #2

I mostly like this article but > Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much Seems like a silly and needlessly aggressive take. Fall behind what? Able to produce "as much" what? I've never been evaluated on volume in my life. Nor have co workers who were severely "behind" ever feared for their jobs.

No, he is correct. LLMs have much larger working memories for the kind of details you work with in programming tasks. You are at an objective cognitive deficit by not taking advantage of this. Everybody knows what he means by left behind. When you program, you do so with a goal in mind, and you will not be able to reach that goal as quickly without LLMs. You will be outcompeted by those who use them, and this means t…

People, generally, do not like to die. They will do various things to avoid doing so.

The Luddites were a small group; AI has the chance to turn a majority of society into loom-smashers, which will be very fun to watch.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#85

Post by asdff »

evilduck wrote: post #19
01284a7e wrote: post #5

"Ride the wave." Or don't. Most LLMs people are using to code are paywalled, and controlled by private, for-profit entities. This is fundamentally different than the past, and diametrically opposed to the hacker. If you're a hacker, which most of you are not (things have changed here over time), you will reject this.

You can accomplish quite a lot with smaller local models on reasonably priced pro tier hardware (not cheap hardware, but very attainable hardware for anyone making average software engineer money). Qwen 3.6 27B and 35BA3, Gemma 28B, and so on are incredibly beneficial even if Anthropic and OpenAI produce better options. Failing that, GLM 5.2 is open weights, trades blows with current frontier models and widely availa…

Why pay for hardware for local model when you have a working local brain?

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#86

Post by archagon »

amluto wrote: post #78

> Writing tests used to be a pain. This is no longer the case. It is ok to request unit tests/CI tests for each PR. These have never been more important since large refactors are becoming increasingly common. Human and LLM review may miss stuff but good tests should catch breakages. The default behavior is not necessarily good. You end up with tests that match the code, but you don’t necessarily end up with tests tha…

Designing good tests requires the most intelligence. Sometimes even more than writing the code itself. You have to fully understand the code, its uses, and its various edge cases.

Automating this away feels like massive folly.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#87

Post by My_Name »

My_Name wrote: post #44

With the improvements that AI has made in just the last year, it should be obvious to anyone that code written by an AI will at some point stop being "AI slop" and be better than the majority of coders are able to put out. Reduced to its basics, all code is just characters put into a sequence. Similar to chess or Go, both of which, it was claimed at one point or another, would be impossible for a computer to beat a h…

I do find it rather curious that on a site where people value discussion, instead of answering my genuine question, people just downvoted the fact that it was asked in the first place.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#88

Post by gorgoiler »

As much as I would like to “evolve”, I don’t want to buy an RTX5090, I don’t want to run a model trained on stolen IP, and I don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to a tech bro. I suspect that I’ll never work in this industry ever again!

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#89

Post by My_Name »

overgard wrote: post #66
My_Name wrote: post #44

With the improvements that AI has made in just the last year, it should be obvious to anyone that code written by an AI will at some point stop being "AI slop" and be better than the majority of coders are able to put out. Reduced to its basics, all code is just characters put into a sequence. Similar to chess or Go, both of which, it was claimed at one point or another, would be impossible for a computer to beat a h…

LLMs are statistical prediction machines, they're always going to produce the most "average" code because they reproduce what they're trained on. Average code is bad , and it's going to get a lot worse as people's skills degrade and the training set degrades. If the code isn't readable to humans, there's no particular reason to think it's going to be magically readable by LLMs either.

Until this year, you would have been right, but in May, the Erdős unit-distance conjecture was disproven by an AI. This required novel thought and reasoning, not just recombining already known facts.

The view that they are only statistical prediction machines is becoming increasingly disconnected from their current abilities.

I probably should have put the word 'easily' before readable. After all, if it is valid code, it can be read.

Re: Don't you mean extinct?

#90

Post by My_Name »

konart wrote: post #72

>In 1993, Jurassic Park came out and revolutionized the use of CGI in films I thought Terminator 2 did this. At least around where I lived everyone talked about T2 and questioned how they did this or that. JP? Not really.

There have been a few movies that each revolutionised CGI in their own way. The Last Starfighter, flight of the navigator, tron, jurassic park, toy story, Terminator 2
Post reply on HN