←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
wiremine ◴[] No.42936346[source]
I'm going to take a contrarian view and say it's actually a good UI, but it's all about how you approach it.

I just finished a small project where I used o3-mini and o3-mini-high to generate most of the code. I averaged around 200 lines of code an hour, including the business logic and unit tests. Total was around 2200 lines. So, not a big project, but not a throw away script. The code was perfectly fine for what we needed. This is the third time I've done this, and each time I get faster and better at it.

1. I find a "pair programming" mentality is key. I focus on the high-level code, and let the model focus on the lower level code. I code review all the code, and provide feedback. Blindly accepting the code is a terrible approach.

2. Generating unit tests is critical. After I like the gist of some code, I ask for some smoke tests. Again, peer review the code and adjust as needed.

3. Be liberal with starting a new chat: the models can get easily confused with longer context windows. If you start to see things go sideways, start over.

4. Give it code examples. Don't prompt with English only.

FWIW, o3-mini was the best model I've seen so far; Sonnet 3.5 New is a close second.

replies(27): >>42936382 #>>42936605 #>>42936709 #>>42936731 #>>42936768 #>>42936787 #>>42936868 #>>42937019 #>>42937109 #>>42937172 #>>42937188 #>>42937209 #>>42937341 #>>42937346 #>>42937397 #>>42937402 #>>42937520 #>>42938042 #>>42938163 #>>42939246 #>>42940381 #>>42941403 #>>42942698 #>>42942765 #>>42946138 #>>42946146 #>>42947001 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.42936709[source]
I guess the things I don't like about Chat are the same things I don't like about pair (or team) programming. I've always thought of programming as a solitary activity. You visualize the data structures, algorithms, data paths, calling flow and stack, and so on, in your mind, with very high throughput "discussions" happening entirely in your brain. Your brain is high bandwidth, low latency. Effortlessly and instantly move things around and visualize them. Figure everything out. Finally, when it's correct, you send it to the slow output device (your fingers).

The minute you have to discuss those things with someone else, your bandwidth decreases by orders of magnitude and now you have to put words to these things and describe them, and physically type them in or vocalize them. Then your counterpart has to input them through his eyes and ears, process that, and re-output his thoughts to you. Slow, slow, slow, and prone to error and specificity problems as you translate technical concepts to English and back.

Chat as a UX interface is similarly slow and poorly specific. It has all the shortcomings of discussing your idea with a human and really no upside besides the dictionary-like recall.

replies(9): >>42936954 #>>42937127 #>>42938119 #>>42938564 #>>42939410 #>>42943038 #>>42944645 #>>42946579 #>>42946796 #
1. bobbiechen ◴[] No.42938564[source]
I agree, chat is only useful in scenarios that are 1) poorly defined, and 2) require a back-and-forth feedback loop. And even then, there might be better UX options.

I wrote about this here: https://digitalseams.com/blog/the-ideal-ai-interface-is-prob...