←back to thread

Agent Client Protocol (ACP)

(agentclientprotocol.com)
270 points vinhnx | 4 comments | 30 Aug 25 12:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mg ◴[30 Aug 25 14:02 UTC] No.45074786[source]▶
I'm fine with treating AI like a human developer:

I ask AI to write a feature (or fix a bug, or do a refactoring) and then I read the commit. If the commit is not to my liking, I "git reset --hard", improve my prompt and ask the AI to do the task again.

I call this "prompt coding":

https://www.gibney.org/prompt_coding

This way, there is no interaction between my coding environment and the AI at all. Just like working with a human developer does not involve them doing anything in my editor.

replies(2): >>45074878 #>>45076374 #
Disposal8433 ◴[30 Aug 25 14:16 UTC] No.45074878[source]▶
> Nowadays, it is better to write prompts

Very big doubt. AI can help for a few very specific tasks, but the hallucinations still happen, and making things up (especially APIs) is unacceptable.

replies(6): >>45074958 #>>45074999 #>>45075081 #>>45075111 #>>45079473 #>>45081297 #
salomonk_mur ◴[30 Aug 25 14:43 UTC] No.45075081[source]▶
Hard disagree. LLMs are now incredibly good for any coding task (with popular languages).
replies(2): >>45075488 #>>45075893 #
Disposal8433 ◴[30 Aug 25 15:31 UTC] No.45075488[source]▶
You can't disagree with facts. Every time I try to give a chance to all those LLMs, they always use old APIs, APIs that don't exist, or mix things up. I'll still try that once a month to see how it evolves, but I have never been amazed by the capabilities of those things.

> with popular languages

Don't know, don't care. I write C++ code and that's all I need. JS and React can die a painful death for all I care as they have injected the worst practices across all the CS field. As for Python, I don't need help with that thanks to uv, but that's another story.

replies(3): >>45077226 #>>45079482 #>>45081303 #
dingnuts ◴[30 Aug 25 19:17 UTC] No.45077226[source]▶
If you want them to not make shit up, you have to load up the context with exactly the docs and code references that the request needs. This is not a trivial process and ime it can take just as long as doing stuff manually a lot of the time, but tools are improving to aid this process and if the immediate context contains everything the model needs it won't hallucinate any worse than I do when I manually enter code (but when I do it, I call it a typo)

there is a learning curve, it reminds me of learning to use Google a long time ago

replies(1): >>45078545 #
1. th0ma5 ◴[30 Aug 25 22:28 UTC] No.45078545[source]▶
So, I've done this, I've pasted in the headers and pleaded with it to not imagine ABIs that don't exist, and multiple models just want to make it work however they can. People shouldn't be so quick to reply like this, many people have tried all this advice... It also doesn't help that there is no independent test that can describe these issues, so all there is anecdote to use a different vendor or that the person must be doing something wrong? How can we talk about these things with these rhetorical reflexes?
replies(1): >>45079494 #
2. verdverm ◴[31 Aug 25 01:24 UTC] No.45079494[source]▶
There is a significant gap between agents and models.

Agents use multiple models, can interact with the environment, and take many steps. You can get them to reflect on what they have done and what they need to do to continue, without intervention. One of the more important things they can do is understand their environment, the libraries and versions in use, fetch or read the docs, and then base their edits on those. Much of the hallucinating SDKs can be removed with this, and with running compile to validate, they get even better.

Models typically operate in a turn-by-turn basis with only the context and messages the user provides.

replies(1): >>45084537 #
3. th0ma5 ◴[31 Aug 25 16:38 UTC] No.45084537[source]▶
You can't make any guarantees and manually watching everything is not tenable. "Much" instead of "all" means having to check it all because "much" is random.
replies(1): >>45085482 #
4. verdverm ◴[31 Aug 25 18:14 UTC] No.45085482{3}[source]▶
You don't have to watch it like you don't have to watch your peers. We have code review processes in place already

You're never going to get all, you don't have all today. Humans make mistakes too and have to run programs to discover their errors