Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

youtube.com

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#91

I’m 20 minutes into the video and it does seem mostly basic and agreeable. Two arguments from Ng that really stuck out that is really tripping my skepticism alarm are: 1) He mentions how fast prototyping has begun because generating a simple app has become easier with AI. This, to me, has always been quick and never the bottleneck for any company I’ve been at, including startups. Validating an idea was simple enough…

The “everyone should code” idea has been done and shown to fail for the past 15 years - I pretty much completely agree, and this idea shows the outsized importance on programming as some kind of inherently superior activity, and bringing the ability to program to the masses as some kind of ultimate good. If you've worked long enough and had interacted with people with varied skillsets, people who don't code aren't on…

I spent a very frustrating 20 minutes with someone this week (a nice person I like, which is why I spent this time) explaining that the Python code chatgpt had provided them would just copy files from one folder to another and was no different from using Windows drag and drop copy.

It would not do any of the things they thought (lots of parsing and file renaming that it took a while for them to articulate). We also discussed how the corporate IT would not be installing a Python interpreter on their computer. Oh what's that? Let me explain. And so on.

ChatGPT didn't help, in this situation, as it turned out.

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or is it the other way around? Project managers who can't actually competently execute won't be able to hang? In the end, what if technically sharp designers and well rounded developers actually end up pushing out incompetent managers? Could be wishful thinking but you never know.

Case in point: https://old.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1lw9r9h/... (the comments are especially revealing)

That is completely bizarre. I’ve been wondering what’s happening to programmer interviews now that AI makes all the standard formats pointless. I never imagined that they would ADD coding to the process for other roles. Having PMs vibe coding in an interview? That’s idiotic.

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#93
post #71
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Wu-Tang ultimately derives from the Wudang Mountains, with the corresponding Cantonese being Moudong https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E7%95%B6%E5%B1%B1

Yea haha the chinese-to-english gets confusing, because it's not a 1:1, it's an N:1 thing, for the number different Chinese languages, different tones, and semi-malicious US immigration agents who botched the shit out of people's names in the late 19th and early 20th century. Wu and Ng in Mandarin and Cantonese may be the same character. But Wu the common surname and Wu for some other thing (e.g. that mountain) may b…

I have never seen a Chinese name that's just two consonants and ZERO vowels. Is Ng some kind of special case? Also interestingly if you put his Chinese name 吳恩達 into Google Translate, you literally get "Andrew Ng"

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#94
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point: https://old.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1lw9r9h/... (the comments are especially revealing)

That is completely bizarre. I’ve been wondering what’s happening to programmer interviews now that AI makes all the standard formats pointless. I never imagined that they would ADD coding to the process for other roles. Having PMs vibe coding in an interview? That’s idiotic.

We've recently come under new management, and the interview process for ICs has changed about a week ago and is similarly absurd to me.

For the frontend role, we have candidates awkwardly read through an AI-generated document that is split up extremely awkwardly and in general has that AI tone to it which makes it hard to read through because it's extremely generic, non-specific and devoid of any useful details or indeed thought put into it. The new head of engineering also wants to be a part of every single one of these, and also wants FOUR OTHER PEOPLE in the interview alongside him. Did I mention already that they have to read through a 6-page document that they have never seen or been informed about live in front of 5 people, including their future manager?

In the interview itself, the head of engineering then asks the candidates to use Cursor (and yes, specifically cursor and only cursor, the guy is fucking obsessed with cursor to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he's somehow getting paid to shove it everywhere) as much as they possibly can. He refuses to answer their questions should they have any, and tells them to direct all questions to Cursor instead.

There was one person who realized very early on that what we're basically asking for is about as simple of a thing as you can possibly imagine, basically a textarea, a button and a list that is dynamically generated (just phrased in the most obtuse possible way, for some reason). He completed this task manually with no Cursor in maybe 5 minutes, 15 if you count the 10 minutes to read through the monstrosity of an AI-generated task. He got points docked by our head of engineering for "Not using AI properly and inefficiently spending time manually coding" which is hilarious because literally nobody who relied on Cursor during the interview got even close to where this guy got.

It has so far been a very predictable disaster, with some extremely talented and promising people sending us emails afterwards to the effect of "This has been the worst interview experience of my life, and I don't care how I did, I'm withdrawing my candidacy. As an official GDPR request, please delete everything and anything you might have on me". Head of engineering is steadfast though, and has called pretty much everyone we've interviewed so far "A bad apple, not a great culture fit because of lack of enthusiasm for AI tooling".

There is absolutely no logic to anything currently happening. It is simply one of the most massive hype bubbles in human history, and VCs, C-levels, middle and upper management are DESPERATE for the marketing hype to be seen as the reality and for the untold billions poured into these systems to be the successes they were initially sold as. There's no humility here, there's no thought being put into any of it, it's extremely cult-like and people are just trying any random idiotic idea that crosses their mind because they have a sycophantic black box that will shower them in infinite praise for every idea they lazily shit out onto the text input area of their favorite LLM tool. They are DESPERATE to fire the expensive, cocky engineers who think they're irreplaceable, and god damn it if they won't burn the entire world down for the chance to be proven right.

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#95

I’m 20 minutes into the video and it does seem mostly basic and agreeable. Two arguments from Ng that really stuck out that is really tripping my skepticism alarm are: 1) He mentions how fast prototyping has begun because generating a simple app has become easier with AI. This, to me, has always been quick and never the bottleneck for any company I’ve been at, including startups. Validating an idea was simple enough…

On point 1, it's worse than that. Adding detail and veracity to a prototype is well known to bring negative value. Prototypes must be exactly a sketchy as the ideas they represent, otherwise they mislead people into thinking the software is built and your ideas can't be changed.

I don't think this reasoning holds up anymore now that somewhat polished prototypes are so cheap to create and change. Maybe not everyone is aware of that yet but eventually it will be common knowledge.

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#96
post #32

My two takeaways is you build 1) Having a precise vision of what you want to achieve 2) Being able to control / steer AI towards that vision Teams that can do both of these things, especially #1 will move much faster. Even if they are wrong its better than vague ideas that get applause but not customers

Are you a student of Robert Fritz? He says this exactly. The only two things you need is 1) a vision and 2) ability to see present reality clearly. Beyond this it’s all about the skill to nudge a creation towards the vision without being prescribed to a process. The art is knowing when to just use the status quo tool or try something new at any point during the nudging is key. Based on his teachings I can easily see vibe coding fitting into creation process quite easily. Where it becomes tricky is “seeing current reality clearly”. If you have been vibe coding for two weeks and perhaps a weak programmer or worse no technical ability, can you actually see reality at that point? Probably not. It requires understanding the software structure. Maybe. Its all up in the air right now. But I truly believe that LLMs make software creation more like creating art.

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#97
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is completely bizarre. I’ve been wondering what’s happening to programmer interviews now that AI makes all the standard formats pointless. I never imagined that they would ADD coding to the process for other roles. Having PMs vibe coding in an interview? That’s idiotic.

We've recently come under new management, and the interview process for ICs has changed about a week ago and is similarly absurd to me. For the frontend role, we have candidates awkwardly read through an AI-generated document that is split up extremely awkwardly and in general has that AI tone to it which makes it hard to read through because it's extremely generic, non-specific and devoid of any useful details or in…

https://youtu.be/KRxe2Gw1F0k

Kinda aligns with what you’re saying

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#98
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea haha the chinese-to-english gets confusing, because it's not a 1:1, it's an N:1 thing, for the number different Chinese languages, different tones, and semi-malicious US immigration agents who botched the shit out of people's names in the late 19th and early 20th century. Wu and Ng in Mandarin and Cantonese may be the same character. But Wu the common surname and Wu for some other thing (e.g. that mountain) may b…

I have never seen a Chinese name that's just two consonants and ZERO vowels. Is Ng some kind of special case? Also interestingly if you put his Chinese name 吳恩達 into Google Translate, you literally get "Andrew Ng"

> I have never seen a Chinese name that's just two consonants and ZERO vowels.

One difference is in Mandarin pinyin vs other stuff

Like in Mandarin pinyin 子 turns into zi, but a lot of Cantonese transliterations will have it as tsz.

(Notably, not the more "official" Cantonese transliterations, where it would be written as zi or ji)

It is still pretty rare though, yea. I can't even think of others off the top of my head

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or is it the other way around? Project managers who can't actually competently execute won't be able to hang? In the end, what if technically sharp designers and well rounded developers actually end up pushing out incompetent managers? Could be wishful thinking but you never know.

Case in point: https://old.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1lw9r9h/... (the comments are especially revealing)

Awesome! Im a PM now!

Re: Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my company everybody codes, including PMs and business people. It can definitely be damaging done in the long run without any supervision from an actual programmer. This is why we assign an engineer to review every PR of a vibe coded project and they don’t really need all of the context to detect bs approaches that will surely fail. About prototyping - its much faster and i dont know how anyone can argue this. PMs…

> This is why we assign an engineer to review every PR of a vibe coded project and they don’t really need all of the context to detect bs approaches that will surely fail. I see this trend in many companies as well, just curious, how do you make sure engineering time is not wasted reviewing so many PRs? Because, some of them will be good, you only need couple of your bets to take off, some definitely bad

Its commonly understood that whoever is reviewing the PR shouldn't concern themselves with all of the project’s context (business or any other).

It really takes a glance at the PR to see what the author wanted to create and you can pick up on bad directions the AI took and so you just help the person navigate these choices.

Of course if the project has to actually grow into a product at some point you would have to rewrite good chunks of it.

Post reply on HN