←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1612 points SwoopsFromAbove | 8 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 1.13s | source | bottom
Show context
mg ◴[15 Jul 25 05:41 UTC] No.44568158[source]▶
In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipping, no waiting. This was the future. It was inevitable.

Yesterday I wanted to rewrite a program to use a large library that would have required me to dive deep down into the documentation or read its code to tackle my use case. As a first try, I just copy+pasted the whole library and my whole program into GPT 4.1 and told it to rewrite it using the library. It succeeded at the first attempt. The rewrite itself was small enough that I could read all code changes in 15 minutes and make a few stylistic changes. Done. Hours of time saved. This is the future. It is inevitable.

PS: Most replies seem to compare my experience to experiences that the responders have with agentic coding, where the developer is iteratively changing the code by chatting with an LLM. I am not doing that. I use a "One prompt one file. No code edits." approach, which I describe here:

https://www.gibney.org/prompt_coding

replies(58): >>44568182 #>>44568188 #>>44568190 #>>44568192 #>>44568320 #>>44568350 #>>44568360 #>>44568380 #>>44568449 #>>44568468 #>>44568473 #>>44568515 #>>44568537 #>>44568578 #>>44568699 #>>44568746 #>>44568760 #>>44568767 #>>44568791 #>>44568805 #>>44568823 #>>44568844 #>>44568871 #>>44568887 #>>44568901 #>>44568927 #>>44569007 #>>44569010 #>>44569128 #>>44569134 #>>44569145 #>>44569203 #>>44569303 #>>44569320 #>>44569347 #>>44569391 #>>44569396 #>>44569574 #>>44569581 #>>44569584 #>>44569621 #>>44569732 #>>44569761 #>>44569803 #>>44569903 #>>44570005 #>>44570024 #>>44570069 #>>44570120 #>>44570129 #>>44570365 #>>44570482 #>>44570537 #>>44570585 #>>44570642 #>>44570674 #>>44572113 #>>44574176 #
1. mdavid626 ◴[15 Jul 25 06:23 UTC] No.44568380[source]▶
We’ll have to split up software development between such AI coders and proper developers. Let AI coders suffer in their own mess.
replies(2): >>44568424 #>>44568642 #
2. bigiain ◴[15 Jul 25 06:31 UTC] No.44568424[source]▶
I think the thing that finally might drive union membership in the software development industry, is going to be the need to be able to tell your boss "No. I will not debug or add features to any AI coded or assisted codebase."
replies(1): >>44568470 #
3. jstummbillig ◴[15 Jul 25 06:37 UTC] No.44568470[source]▶
The historical precedent for ludism working is slim.
replies(2): >>44568573 #>>44568576 #
4. clarinificator ◴[15 Jul 25 06:50 UTC] No.44568573{3}[source]▶
Luddites, contrary to popular misconceptions, was an extreme form of labor action concentrated in jurisdictions with the most draconian enforcement of the repressive legislation England had in the 19th century.

It had nothing to do with arresting progress or being against technology.

5. tempfile ◴[15 Jul 25 06:51 UTC] No.44568576{3}[source]▶
That's true, but luddism is popularly associated with opposing useful technology (and is badly understood by most people anyway).
6. godelski ◴[15 Jul 25 06:59 UTC] No.44568642[source]▶
The problem is Lemon Markets[0]

Lemon Markets do not happen because people do not want "peaches". Lemon markets happen because consumers cannot differentiate a lemon from a peach, at least at time of purchase. There can be high demand for peaches, and even producers of peaches. But if customers can't find out if they bought a lemon or peach until they get home and can take a bite, then peaches disappear.

We do not need a crystal ball to see what is going to happen. We've been watching it happen for more than a decade. We churn out shitty code that is poorly cobbled together, begging for the mercy of death. Yet, despite everyone having computers, phones, and using apps and software, how many can tell what is good and bad without careful inspection?

The bitter truth is that lemons are quick and easy to produce while peaches take time. If we split up software development as you propose, then it won't just be the AI coders who are eating lemons. Frankly, it seems that everything is sour these days. Even the most tech illiterate people I know are frustrated at the sour taste. There's demand for peaches, but it's a hard hole to dig ourselves out of. Even harder when building more shovel factories.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

replies(1): >>44568914 #
7. QRY ◴[15 Jul 25 07:48 UTC] No.44568914[source]▶
The culpability we share for "churning out shitty code" is spot-on imo. There's been so much incentive to shipping "good enough", that even the definition of "good enough" has been backsliding. Sometimes even to the point of "whatever we can get away with", in the name of speed of delivery.

That friction has always been there, in my experience. But this is the first time I'm seeing it happening around me. LLM's are so divisive, and yet the more extreme positions on either side seem to be digging their heels in, as if the tech is not in flux.

Maybe we need a little Cave Johnson energy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6iTwVIiMM

replies(1): >>44569837 #
8. godelski ◴[15 Jul 25 10:52 UTC] No.44569837{3}[source]▶

  > "whatever we can get away with"
Minimum Viable Product

Sure, it makes sense in some cases, but it can't stay minimal