←back to thread

179 points articsputnik | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
serbuvlad ◴[] No.45054479[source]
I think the whole AI vs non. AI debate is a bit besides the point. Engineers are stuck in the old paradigm of "perfect" algorithms.

I think the image you post at the beginning basically sums it up for me: ChatGPT o3/5 Thinking can one-shot 75% of most reasonably sized tasks I give it without breaking a sweat, but struggles with tweaks to get it to 100%. So I make those tweaks myself and I have cut my code writing task in half or one third of the time.

ChatGPT also knows more idioms and useful libraries than I do so I generally end up with cleaner code this way.

Ferrari's are still hand assembled but Ford's assembly line and machines help save up human labor even if the quality of a mass-produced item is less than a hand-crafted one. But if everything was hand-crafted, we would have no computers at all to program.

Programming and writing will become niche and humans will still be used where a quality higher than what AI can produce is needed. But most code will be done by minotaur human-ai teams, where the human has a minimal but necessary contribution to keep the AI on track... I mean, it already is.

replies(16): >>45054579 #>>45054647 #>>45054815 #>>45054948 #>>45054968 #>>45055113 #>>45055151 #>>45055212 #>>45055260 #>>45055308 #>>45055473 #>>45055512 #>>45055563 #>>45058219 #>>45060059 #>>45061019 #
godelski ◴[] No.45060059[source]

  > Engineers are stuck in the old paradigm of "perfect" algorithms.
Reminds me of a misinterpretation of Knuth.

  > Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
He was definitely knocking engineers for wanting to write "perfect" algorithms, but this quote also got bastardized to mean something different from what he said (happens to many clichés). All he said was "grab a fucking profiler before you optimize."

But now, I'm not sure a lot of programmers even know what a profiler is. When was the last time you saw someone profile their code?

Problem is we've taken the idea of "minimum viable product" too far. People are saying "Doesn't have to be perfect, just has to work." I think most people agree. But with the current state of things? I disagree that things even work. We're so far away from the question of optimization. It's bad enough that there are apps that require several gigs to just edit a 30kb document but FFS we're living in a world where Windows Hello crashes Microsoft Outlook. It's not the programs are ugly babies that could be better, they are monstrosities begging to be put to death.

I WISH we could talk about optimization. I WISH our problem was perfectionism. But right now our problem is that everything is a steaming pile of garbage and most people are just shrugging their arms like "it is the way it is". Just because you don't clean up that steaming pile of garbage doesn't mean someone else doesn't. So stop passing the buck.

replies(4): >>45060328 #>>45060535 #>>45060978 #>>45062567 #
1. trinsic2 ◴[] No.45060328[source]
> Problem is we've taken the idea of "minimum viable product" too far. People are saying "Doesn't have to be perfect, just has to work." I think most people agree. But with the current state of things? I disagree that things even work. We're so far away from the question of optimization. It's bad enough that there are apps that require several gigs to just edit a 30kb document but FFS we're living in a world where Windows Hello crashes Microsoft Outlook. It's not the programs are ugly babies that could be better, they are monstrosities begging to be put to death.

LOL. OMG that was beautiful. It almost feels like we are de-evolving software to a state where shit is going to stop working bad. I know this is not full of facts, but this take reminds me of Jonathan Blow's video "Preventing the Collapse of Civilization"[0] Where he talks about how code runs worse than it ever has and I think he was arguing that civilization is collapsing before our eyes in slow time.

[0]: https://youtu.be/pW-SOdj4Kkk?si=LToItJb1Cv-GgB4q&t=1089

replies(1): >>45060514 #
2. godelski ◴[] No.45060514[source]
Good talk. I did something similar to him and all that happened is everyone was just saying I'm making a lot out of nothing. They're right that each thing was "nothing" but the problem is that this is a non-trivial number of "nothings" happening every day...

Honestly, I think the problem is that it's a Lemon Market[0]. Lemon markets thrive when there is asymmetric information. When a customer cannot tell the difference between a good product (peach) and a bad product (lemon). All it takes is a bunch of tech illiterate people... not sure where we'll find those...

On your video, funny thing. When I was in my PhD I had a very hard time publishing because I was building models that were much smaller, required less data, but got similar performance. Reviewers just looked at the benchmark like "not SOTA? lol". I've seen tons of great papers solving similar problems constantly get rejected. As a reviewer I frequently defended works like that as well as works that had good ideas but just didn't have enough GPU power. It was really telling...

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

[P.S.] A nice solution I found for the pasting problem he mentioned (and in various forms) is that I first paste the text into the url bad or search bar then copy that and then paste. {<c-k>,<c-l>}<c-v><c-a><c-c>. Works 98% of the time every time.