Is there anything special about using the wave function collapse algorithm in this particular context? I feel this is like when experimental musician make music with plant electrical signals, wind flow or sea wave movements, etc. The idea sounds great but the execution not so much.
> while my calculator can perfectly add any numbers up to its memory limit, it has no understanding of addition.
"my calculator can perfectly add any numbers up to its memory limit" This kind of anthropomorphic language is misleading in these conversations. Your calculator isn't an agent so it should not be expected to be capable of any cognition.
> If you built an LLM exclusively on the writings and letters of John Steinbeck, you could NOT tell the LLM to solve an integral for you amd expect it to be right.
Isn't this obvious? There is not enough latent knowledge of math there to enable current LLMs to approximate anything resembling an integral.
It isnt obvious to the person I am responding to, and it isnt obvious to majority of individuals I speak with on the matter (which is why AI, personally, is in the bucket of religion amd politics for polite conversation to simply avoid)
Wait -- I'm fairly certain this is obvious to the person you were responding to. It may not be obvious to a lay person (who may not even know LLMs are trained at all). But I think this is obvious to almost all people with even a small understanding of LLMs.
I'm actually pretty convinced they're a troll or at the very least a high confrontation participant who is quick to move goal posts, ignore entire chains of logic, engage in ad hominim attacks of other posters, and is bringing zero novel insight anywhere in this thread
one of the posters said it can't even reason through chess, i ran the actual benchmark, spent money and actually proved that it can beat a 1000 elo chess engine.
It’s obvious to me. What point are you trying to make? It’s not religion it’s falsifiable easily.
LLMs can reason about integrals as well as in a literature context. You suggested that if it’s not trained on literature then it can’t reason about it. But why does that matter?
Now what if we ask the LLM to write about social media? Do you think the output would be similar to what you'd get if we had a time machine to bring the actual man back and have him form his own thoughts firsthand?
> If most people are not using a tool properly, it is not their fault; it is the tool's fault.
Replace tool with one of piano|guitar|etc and see your logic fall apart. Software tools like any other have a manual and require effort and time to learn.
I see the point and I wouldn't want to belabor the metaphor, but I really feel like guitar is actually extremely difficult to even get started with. Between the awkward stretching of the fingers, how difficult/painful it is to hold down strings hard enough (and close enough to the fret) to get a clean, clear note, and how hard it is to hold those strings down in such a way that your fingers don't brush against other strings, I'd say guitar is crazy hard to start. I'm saying this as someone who has been playing and enjoying guitar for decades. Beginners have a rough time of it for awhile.
Git is much easier to master than the piano. I played piano for years and can only just play two-handed melodies if they aren't well-aligned.
I've read a few blog posts and half a book on git, and I don't remember the last time I had issues with it.
I also don't recall a junior ever having trouble uploading files with git. Unless they're in an interactive rebase, which wouldn't happen your first time trying out git.
There’s inherent beauty in mastering the piano. It’s worth it to spend time practicing.
Git is just a means to an end. Heck, it’s usually a means to a means to an end: it is only a tool for version control of code, and the code itself is just a means to education or running the actual business.
It can be that. In the same vein, playing a guitar can just be the means to an end. Some people play music to get paid. Do you think playing your 60th wedding gig feels beautiful or meaningful?
I personally think git is a marvel of engineering.
Hackers are people who are capable of seeing beauty in systems. We're at least nominally on "hacker news", even though a better name might be "VC news".
Depends on the instrument. Anyone without experience or instruction is gonna make a fool of themselves picking up a wind instrument. You need to train the muscles in your face and mouth to form the correct embouchure needed to produce a clear note.
> For me, posting a Show HN was a huge deal - usually done after years of development
This is still possible. Vibe coders are just not interested in working on a piece of software for years till it's polished. It's a self selection pattern. Like the vast amount of terrible VB6 apps when it came out. Or the state of JS until very recently.
> Google would have to take the lead and implement this in chrome then enough developers would have to build sites using it and force safari and firefox to comply. It just isn't feasible.
This is not something you really want to happen for the health of the web tech ecosystem. I am surprised to see actual developers nonchalantly suggesting this. A type system for the web is not worth an IE 2.0
I would want this to happen personally as there is no other way that the tech can advance at this current point.
It's clear that there is no global browser federation that works together to make standards. Every browser does things themselves and implements things differently. So the only way that it is feasible is if the browser that is used by 75%+ of sessions is the one that implements it.
Would I like it to be open source? of course. would I like it to be a separate project that was not directly controlled by google? yes. But this does not change the fact that it would ONLY be possible if they accept it into chrome.
The alternative is to forever use Javascript and never advance or change things.
Tech moves quickly and it could be possible that a new browser could take market share in 10 years but it is inconceivable now and would take some groundbreaking shift.
It feels like current browsers can never change their language and it will only be once a new platform is standard, like Vision/Glasses or a voice AI assistant.
It could have been possible if Huawei was allowed to stay in the US market as they are making their own kernal, operating systems and browsers, but they are now excluded. So only google and apple are present to control how things operate.
Over time things must adapt if they become better, there is always pushback when change occurs, but change is necessary for growth.
> Now I first discuss with an AI Agent or ChatGPT to write a thorough spec before handing it off to an agent to code it. I don’t read every line. Instead, I thoroughly test the outcome.
This is likely the future.
That being said: "I used to spend most of my time writing code, fixing syntax, thinking through how to structure the code, looking up documentation on how to use a library.".
If you are spending a lot of time fixing syntax, have you looked into linters? If you are spending too much time thinking about how to structure the code, how about spending some days coming up with some general conventions or simply use existing ones.
If you are getting so much productivity from LLMs, it is worth checking if you were simply unproductive relative to your average dev in the first place. If that's the case, you might want to think, what is going to happen to your productivity gains when everyone else jumps on the LLM train. LLMs might be covering for your unproductivity at the code level, but you might still be dropping the ball in non-code areas. That's the higher level pattern I would be thinking about.
I was a good dev but I did not love the code itself. I loved the outcome. Other devs would have done better on leetcode and they would have produced better code syntax than me.
I’ve always been more of a product/business person who saw code as a way to get to the end goal.
That elite coder who hates talking to business people and who cares more about the code than the business? Not me. I’m the opposite.
Hence, LLMs have been far better for me in terms of productivity.
> I’ve always been more of a product/business person who saw code as a way to get to the end goal.
That’s what code always is. A description on how the computer can help someone faster to the end goal. Devs care a little more about the description, because end goals change and rewriting the whole thing from scratch is costly and time-consuming.
> That elite coder who hates talking to business people and who cares more about the code than the business? Not me. I’m the opposite.
I believe that coder exists only in your imagination. All the good ones I know are great communicators. Clarity of thought is essential to writing good code.
I believe that coder exists only in your imagination. All the good ones I know are great communicators. Clarity of thought is essential to writing good code.
I don't think so. These coders exist everywhere. Plenty of great coders are great at writing the code itself but not at the business aspects. Many coders simply do not care about the business or customers part. To them, the act of coding and producing quality code and the process of writing software is the goal. IE. These people are most likely to decline building a feature that customers and the business desperately need because it might cause the code base to become harder to maintain. These people will also want to refactor more than building new features. In the past, these people had plenty of value. In the era of LLMs, I think these people have less value than business/product oriented devs.
> Many coders simply do not care about the business or customers part.
These coders may exist, but they are in my experience not that common. Most coders do care about the business or customers part, but think very differently about these aspects than business people, and thus come to very different conclusions how to handle these topics.
In my experience, it's rather exactly these programmers who are often in conflict with business people
- because they care about such topics
- because they come to different conclusions than the business people, and
- because these programmers care so much about these business-related topics, they are very vocal and sometimes confrontative with their opinions.
In other words: coders who barely care about these business-related aspects are often much easier to handle for business-minded people.
> > That elite coder who hates talking to business people and who cares more about the code than the business? Not me. I’m the opposite.
> I believe that coder exists only in your imagination. All the good ones I know are great communicators. Clarity of thought is essential to writing good code.
Clarity of thought does not make you a good communicator with respect to communicating with business people. People, for example, say about me that I am really good at communicating to people who are in deep love of research, but when I present arguments of similar clarity to business people, my often somewhat abstract considerations typically go over their heads.
> AI generates code fast but then you're stuck reading every line because it might've missed some edge case or broken something three layers deep
I will imagine that in the future this will be tackled with a heavy driven approach and tight regulation of what the agent can and cannot touch. So frequent small PRs over big ones. Limit folder access to only those that need changing. Let it build the project. If it doesn't build, no PR submissions allowed. If a single test fails, no PR submissions allowed. And the tests will likely be the first if not the main focus in LLM PRs.
I use the term "LLM" and not "AI" because I notice that people have started attributing LLM related issues (like ripping off copyrighted material, excessive usage of natural resources, etc) to AI in general which is damaging for the future of AI.
> I use the term "LLM" and not "AI" because I notice that people have started attributing LLM related issues (like ripping off copyrighted material, excessive usage of natural resources, etc) to AI in general which is damaging for the future of AI.
I think you have that backwards.
The resource and copyright concerns stem from any of these "AI" technologies which require a training phase. Which, to my knowledge, is all of them.
LLMs are just the main targets because they are the most used. Diffusion models have the same concerns.
