Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dktoao's commentslogin

Since everyone else is sharing their experiences with this book here is mine:

Reading this books was a huge turning point for me as someone with diagnosed mild Autism. I think a lot of the things in this books are fairly obvious to non neuro-divergent folks. But for me, it was like a manual on how to handle myself in social situations, a thing that was mysterious and frustrating to me before. I wouldn't say I am now some sort of socialite, but I am far from the days of being being excluded from basically every social group I attempted to be part of.


"Our goal should be to give an LLM coding agent zero degrees of freedom"

Wouldn't that just be called inventing a new language with all the overhead of the languages we already have? Are we getting to the point where getting LLMs to be productive and also write good code is going to require so much overhead and additional procedures and tools that we might as well write the code ourselves. Hmmm...


Actually, no. We always needed good checks - that's why you have techniques like automated canary analysis, extensive testing, checking for coverage - these are forms of "executable oracles". If you wanted to be able to do continuous deployment - you had to be very thorough in your validation.

LLMs just take this to the extreme. You can no longer rely on human code reviews (well you can but you give away all the LLM advantages) so then if you take out "human judgement" *from validation*[1], you have to resort to very sophisticated automated validation. This is it - it's not about "inventing a new language", it's about being much more thorough (and innovative, and efficient) in the validation process.

[1] never from design, or specification - you shouldn't outsource that to AI, I don't think we're close to an AI that can do that even moderately effective without human help.


If the LLM generates code exactly matching a specification, the specification becomes a conventional programing language. The LLM is just transforming from one language to another.


Yes, but a programming language with a proverbial sufficiently smart compiler. That is very useful.


Try writing an exhaustive spec for anything non-trivial and you might see the problem.


Been saying this for a while now. I work in aerospace, and I can tell you from first hand experience software engineers don't know what designing a spec is.

Aero, mechanical, and electrical engineers spend years designing a system. Design, requirements, reviews, redesign, more reviews, more requirements. Every single corner of the system is well understood before anything gets made. It's a detailed, time consuming, arduous process.

Software engineers think they can duplicate that process with a few skills and a weekend planning session with Claude Code. Because implementation is cheaper we don't have to go as hard as the mechanical and electrical folks, but to properly spec a system is still a massive amount of up front effort.


And software isn't as constrained by physics as hardware, which massively expands both the design space as well as how many ways things can go wrong.


Llm boys discover the halting problem!


I honestly don't see how this is related? Nothing says "one shot a full system from a perfect specification", I don't think this was ever a goal (or that it will be practical to do so)


Yeah, precision LLM coding is kind of an oxymoron. English language -> codebase is essentially lossily-compressed logic by definition. The less lossy the compression becomes, the more you probably approach re-inventing programming languages. Which then means that in order to use LLMs to code, you're accepting some degree of imprecision.


Zero degrees of freedom is a step too far.

What you want is correctness preserving transformations. Add to this some metrics such as code size, execution speed.


Yea this feels like saying “if you give them good enough specs they’ll produce the code you want” which reduces to…writing the code yourself. Just with more steps.


Can't wait for SEO ..ahem.. AI optimized docs for everything... :/


Ok, I think you are going to need to explain to me why "Overconfidence resulting from ignorance" isn't exactly the same thing as "lacking metacognitive ability to understand one's own skill level". Just worded more simply


Embedded systems engineer with experience developing on bare-metal and embedded Linux platforms. I have developed commercial embedded products from PCB design all the way to market. I have my own lab equipment and am fully ready to start working remotely if the job requires it.

  Location: Denver, CO USA
  Remote: Remote | Hybrid | In Office
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: C/C++, Python, Buildroot, ATTiny, ATMega, STM32
  Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G5zuFuMXbzGVIIIhlLNEi5Mg6wDOQOFM/view?usp=sharing
  Email: dkuntz417@gmail.com
  Github: https://github.com/GhostWrench
Thank you for your time!


Ooof, no hardware schematics? Also missing datasheets? This projects seems like a very tall task to me without these fundamental missing pieces. Will Google release them soon or am I looking the the wrong place?


IIUC, the plan is to manufacture something completely new that runs Pebble OS. It seems likely that at least one chip they used in the original pebble is no longer available in large quantities.


Interesting. It would be great if they could open source that too. I would love me some fully hackable smartwatch hardware!


If I remember correctly (and I could be wrong) Fitbit only ever bought the software side of Pebble (and the developers effectively), gutting the company and leaving Eric with the Hardware side of things...


This project is started by a pebble founder, doesn’t seem like too tall of a task to me


I didn't say too tall, I just said tall.


This is good advice but only it has been followed from the beginning and consistently throughout the development of the original code. It is applicable to large organizations with lots of resources who hire professional developers and have a lot of people who are familiar with the code that are active in code reviews and have some minimum form of documentation / agreement on what the logic flow in the code should look like (the article does not claim otherwise). But I would implore those who work at the 80% of other companies that this advice is nearly useless and YMMV trying to follow it. The one thing that I think is universally good advice is to try and aggressively remove code whenever possible.


`the do {} while (0)` block with breaks does exactly what goto does but it is so much more hacky, less flexible and harder to follow IMHO.


Maybe this is what you are looking for? https://github.com/GhostWrench/ttrpg9000. Full disclosure: this is my design and I do sell it on Etsy (Unfortunately I am currently out of stock and won't be back in until I make some BOM simplifications for production). But if you want to make your own, you can get the parts for ~$80 USD for small runs, assuming you can solder 0805 SMD parts.


Make a burner account and log in to it. You will see what the parent comment is talking about.


Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely.

I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: