←back to thread

1479 points sandslash | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
abdullin ◴[] No.44316210[source]
Tight feedback loops are the key in working productively with software. I see that in codebases up to 700k lines of code (legacy 30yo 4GL ERP systems).

The best part is that AI-driven systems are fine with running even more tight loops than what a sane human would tolerate.

Eg. running full linting, testing and E2E/simulation suite after any minor change. Or generating 4 versions of PR for the same task so that the human could just pick the best one.

replies(7): >>44316306 #>>44316946 #>>44317531 #>>44317792 #>>44318080 #>>44318246 #>>44318794 #
latexr ◴[] No.44317792[source]
> Or generating 4 versions of PR for the same task so that the human could just pick the best one.

That sounds awful. A truly terrible and demotivating way to work and produce anything of real quality. Why are we doing this to ourselves and embracing it?

A few years ago, it would have been seen as a joke to say “the future of software development will be to have a million monkey interns banging on one million keyboards and submit a million PRs, then choose one”. Today, it’s lauded as a brilliant business and cost-saving idea.

We’re beyond doomed. The first major catastrophe caused by sloppy AI code can’t come soon enough. The sooner it happens, the better chance we have to self-correct.

replies(6): >>44317876 #>>44317884 #>>44317997 #>>44318175 #>>44318235 #>>44318625 #
osigurdson ◴[] No.44318175[source]
I'm not sure that AI code has to be sloppy. I've had some success with hand coding some examples and then asking codex to rigorously adhere to prior conventions. This can end up with very self consistent code.

Agree though on the "pick the best PR" workflow. This is pure model training work and you should be compensated for it.

replies(1): >>44318275 #
elif ◴[] No.44318275[source]
Yep this is what Andrej talks about around 20 minutes into this talk.

You have to be extremely verbose in describing all of your requirements. There is seemingly no such thing as too much detail. The second you start being vague, even if it WOULD be clear to a person with common sense, the LLM views that vagueness as a potential aspect of it's own creative liberty.

replies(6): >>44318409 #>>44318439 #>>44318599 #>>44318670 #>>44319080 #>>44323353 #
SirMaster ◴[] No.44318670[source]
I'm really waiting for AI to get on par with the common sense of most humans in their respective fields.
replies(1): >>44318737 #
1. diggan ◴[] No.44318737[source]
I think you'll be waiting for a very long time. Right now we have programmable LLMs, so if you're not getting the results, you need to reprogram it to give the results you want.