←back to thread

413 points martinald | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nine_k ◴[] No.46197061[source]
Had the cost of building custom software dropped 90%, we would be seeing a flurry of low-cost, decent-quality SaaS offering all over the marketplace, possibly undercutting some established players.

From where I sit, right now, this does not seem to be the case.

This is as if writing down the code is not the biggest problem, or the biggest time sink, of building software.

replies(28): >>46197121 #>>46197162 #>>46197191 #>>46197790 #>>46198132 #>>46198182 #>>46198282 #>>46198425 #>>46198498 #>>46198608 #>>46198655 #>>46198747 #>>46198991 #>>46199214 #>>46199310 #>>46199646 #>>46199706 #>>46201118 #>>46201177 #>>46202111 #>>46202477 #>>46202670 #>>46203360 #>>46204030 #>>46204863 #>>46204917 #>>46207989 #>>46214063 #
kenjackson ◴[] No.46198132[source]
It has dropped by maybe MORE than 90%. My sons school recently asked me to build some tools for them -- I did this over a decade ago for them, for free. I did it again using AI tools (different problem though) and I had it mostly done in 30 minutes (after I got the credentials set up properly -- that took up more time than the main coding part). This was probably several days of work for me in the past.
replies(2): >>46198327 #>>46198663 #
TheRoque ◴[] No.46198327[source]
But in the past, you knew the codebase very well, and it was trivial to implement a fix and upgrade the software. Can the same be done with LLMs ? Well from what I see, it depends on your luck. But if the LLMs can't help you, then you gotta read the whole codebase that you've never read before and you quickly lose the initial benefits. I don't doubt someday we'll get there though.
replies(3): >>46198383 #>>46198403 #>>46198426 #
kenjackson ◴[] No.46198403[source]
I've hit this in little bursts, but one thing I've found is that LLMs are really good at reasoning about their own code and helping me understand how to diagnose and make fixes.

I recently found some assembly source for some old C64 games and used an LLM to walk me through it (purely recreational). It was so good at it. If I was teaching a software engineering class, I'd have students use LLMs to do analysis of large code bases. One of the things we did in grad school was to go through gcc and contribute something to it. Man, that code was so complex and compilers are one of my specialties (at the time). I think having an LLM with me would have made the task 100x easier.

replies(1): >>46198639 #
devin ◴[] No.46198639[source]
Does that mean you don't think you learned anything valuable through the experience of working through this complexity yourself?

I'm not advocating for everyone to do all of their math on paper or something, but when I look back on the times I learned the most, it involved a level of focus and dedication that LLMs simply do not require. In fact, I think their default settings may unfortunately lead you toward shallow patterns of thought.

replies(3): >>46198904 #>>46198927 #>>46204188 #
1. kolinko ◴[] No.46198904[source]
I'd say this is similar to working with assembly vs c++ vs python. Programming in python you learn less about low level architecture trivia than in assembly, but you learn way more in terms of high level understanding of issues.

When I had to deal with/patch complex c/c++ code, I rarely ever got a deep understanding of what the code did exactly - just barely enough to patch what was needed and move on. With help of LLMs it's easier to understand what the whole codebase is about.