←back to thread

Andrew Ng says bottleneck in AI startups isn't coding – it's product management

(www.businessinsider.com)
120 points cl42 | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:43 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
betaby ◴[30 Aug 25 15:04 UTC] No.45075275[source]▶
If AI is that good, can someone code a good XML library with AI? The spec is available.

If AI is that good, there should be an explosion of Open Source projects of good quality.

Neither of those is happening.

replies(11): >>45075333 #>>45075338 #>>45075381 #>>45075475 #>>45075503 #>>45075542 #>>45075680 #>>45075778 #>>45075780 #>>45075793 #>>45082198 #
jsnell ◴[30 Aug 25 15:18 UTC] No.45075381[source]▶
I suspect somebody could. But why? Do you need a new XML library? I don't.

And if you don't need one, why write one? If there is no specific use case in mind, how do you even determine what dimension "good" is measured on?

replies(2): >>45075541 #>>45075789 #
betaby ◴[30 Aug 25 15:37 UTC] No.45075541[source]▶
XML is used extensively everywhere. Multibillion companies depend on libxml2 which historically had multitude of vulnerabilities, see https://ubuntu.com/security/cves?package=libxml2

Most of the Internet ifra depends on libxml2, major vendors like Juniper and Cisco use it. To my knowledge Android use it as well,

Naturally, with the advancement of AI, one would expect XML would be first thing to rewrite, given that library is in the critical path literally everywhere.

replies(3): >>45075588 #>>45075628 #>>45076317 #
1. jsnell ◴[30 Aug 25 17:15 UTC] No.45076317{3}[source]▶
Clearly that's not the use you have for a new XML library. It's a use you're imagining somebody else would have for it. And because you're just imagining the use case, you've failed to think through what "good" would actually mean in that use case.

To replace libxml2 across these ecosystems you would need it to be API-, ABI, and probably bug-compatible with a decrepit old C library. That's not something anyone or anything can write from just the XML spec.