←back to thread

559 points Gricha | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
xnorswap ◴[] No.46233056[source]
Claude is really good at specific analysis, but really terrible at open-ended problems.

"Hey claude, I get this error message: <X>", and it'll often find the root cause quicker than I could.

"Hey claude, anything I could do to improve Y?", and it'll struggle beyond the basics that a linter might suggest.

It suggested enthusiastically a library for <work domain> and it was all "Recommended" about it, but when I pointed out that the library had been considered and rejected because <issue>, it understood and wrote up why that library suffered from that issue and why it was therefore unsuitable.

There's a significant blind-spot in current LLMs related to blue-sky thinking and creative problem solving. It can do structured problems very well, and it can transform unstructured data very well, but it can't deal with unstructured problems very well.

That may well change, so I don't want to embed that thought too deeply into my own priors, because the LLM space seems to evolve rapidly. I wouldn't want to find myself blind to the progress because I write it off from a class of problems.

But right now, the best way to help an LLM is have a deep understanding of the problem domain yourself, and just leverage it to do the grunt-work that you'd find boring.

replies(21): >>46233156 #>>46233163 #>>46233206 #>>46233362 #>>46233365 #>>46233406 #>>46233506 #>>46233529 #>>46233686 #>>46233981 #>>46234313 #>>46234696 #>>46234916 #>>46235210 #>>46235385 #>>46236239 #>>46236306 #>>46236829 #>>46238500 #>>46238819 #>>46240191 #
pdntspa ◴[] No.46233365[source]
That's why you treat it like a junior dev. You do the fun stuff of supervising the product, overseeing design and implementation, breaking up the work, and reviewing the outputs. It does the boring stuff of actually writing the code.

I am phenomenally productive this way, I am happier at my job, and its quality of work is extremely high as long as I occasionally have it stop and self-review it's progress against the style principles articulated in its AGENTS.md file. (As it tends to forget a lot of rules like DRY)

replies(12): >>46233446 #>>46233448 #>>46233642 #>>46233652 #>>46233782 #>>46234010 #>>46234898 #>>46235480 #>>46238997 #>>46241434 #>>46241981 #>>46242791 #
n4r9 ◴[] No.46233446[source]
I think we have different opinions on what's fun and what's boring!
replies(4): >>46233963 #>>46234282 #>>46234342 #>>46234495 #
Nemi ◴[] No.46234495[source]
You've really hit the crux of the problem and why so many people have differing opinions about AI coding. I also find coding more fun with AI. The reason is that my main goal is to solve a problem, or someone else's problem, in a way that is satisfying. I don't much care about the code itself anymore. I care about the thing that it does when it's done.

Having said that I used to be deep into coding and back then I am quite sure that I would hate AI coding for me. I think for me it comes down to – when I was learning about coding and stretching my personal knowledge in the area, the coding part was the fun part because I was learning. Now that I am past that part I really just want to solve problems, and coding is the means to that end. AI is now freeing because where I would have been reluctant to start a project, I am more likely to give it a go.

I think it is similar to when I used to play games a lot. When I would play a game where you would discover new items regularly, I would go at it hard and heavy up until the point where I determined there was either no new items to be found or it was just "more of the same". When I got to that point it was like a switch would flip and I would lose interest in the game almost immediately.

replies(7): >>46234628 #>>46235992 #>>46236149 #>>46236930 #>>46237085 #>>46239535 #>>46242499 #
altmanaltman ◴[] No.46239535[source]
A few counterpoints:

1. If you don't care about code and only care about the "thing that it does when it's done", how do you solve problems in a way that is satisfying? Because you are not really solving any problem but just using the AI to do it. Is prompting more satisfying than actually solving?

2. You claim you're done "learning about coding and stretching my personal knowledge in the area" but don't you think that's super dangerous? Like how can you just be done with learning when tech is constantly changing and new things come up everyday. In that sense, don't you think AI use is actually making you learn less and you're just justifying it with the whole "I love solving problems, not code" thing?

3. If you don't care about the code, do the people who hire you for it do? And if they do, then how can you claim you don't care about the code when you'll have to go through a review process and at least check the code meaning you have to care about the code itself, right?

replies(3): >>46239867 #>>46239996 #>>46240026 #
danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.46240026{3}[source]
are you really solving the problem, or is the compiler doing it?
replies(1): >>46240252 #
1. altmanaltman ◴[] No.46240252{4}[source]
is the compiler really solving the problem or the electricity flowing through the machine?
replies(2): >>46240363 #>>46240436 #
2. ukuina ◴[] No.46240363[source]
Is it the electricity, or is it quantum entanglement with Roko's Basilisk?
replies(1): >>46240786 #
3. danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.46240436[source]
exactly.....
4. hellouruguay ◴[] No.46240786[source]
Is it the Basilisk, or just a bit flip in the parent simulation?
replies(1): >>46240847 #
5. danielmarkbruce ◴[] No.46240847{3}[source]
the parent simulation wouldn't use something so crude as a "bit"...