4 ms·

>To code, for example, you need to hook a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I have a hunch that coding as we know it is going to look very different in ~5-10 years

by fooker 3y ago

>To code, for example, you need to hook a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I have a hunch that coding as we know it is going to look very different in ~5-10 years.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Maybe, but not in terms of needing code. You see, the rules of formal languages that encode formal rules of system constraints pre-date computers by centuries. Think of math proofs, for example. Sure, we can encode symbols as emojis, or geometric figures or whatever. But in the end, it's sequences of symbols, that's the nature of it. And tapping symbols one by one with a headset will suck, no matter how programming looks. The rules of formal languages that encode formal rules of system constraints pre-date in fact our species too. Think about what DNA is. Oh yeah, spooky, isn't it. A sequence of symbols (GTCA) encoding a sequence of more complex symbols (proteins). Spooky! But yes, DNA is our code. And it works the same as our programming code. Now I know where you're going. LLMs. Let's assume an LLM writes the code for you. You still have to read it, which you can do fine with a headset (if it's not as encapsulating and heavy, and with short battery life as Vision Pro v1). But if you spot something's off, you need to adjust it. Go directly for the kill, and make that surgical series of edits. You know? Or... maybe you can spend the rest of the day hopelessly trying to explain to Siri 2030 year edition what you want to do, instead of going in and doing it, for that "last mile". Because if AI can do the last mile itself, to the point you don't need to even verify it... first, that's the fast way to AI shipping code we don't understand and basically giving up our entire civilization to it. And second... we don't need to code, but we also won't need to exist, and therefore not need headsets. So in the worldlines where we DO exist... Vision Pro sucks for coding, because it's a shitty human interface to editing code. And in the worldlines where we DO NOT exist... Vision Pro sucks for coding, because AI doesn't need headsets.
- greedo 3y ago
  You do realize you can use a keyboard with this? And that the VP can plug in for infinite power?
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    I realize yes. And do you realize if you'll be using keyboard and mouse you may as well not literally wear a computer *on your head*? Are you aware of displays? They can support themselves. On desks. Or wall mounts. Compared to Vision Pro it feels like magic. Self-supporting displays. It's the future. Everything is about to change when people learn about it.
    - musictubes 3y ago
      And do you realize that’s by taking the displays off of your desk you can have more of them? Oh, at any size and any location you want. You can continue using the input devices you like but now have as many displays as you want and you can take it with you easily. You assume you will hate it, maybe you will. But maybe the future won’t involve dedicated furniture to put things on and cables connecting them. Maybe you’ll be able to work wherever you want and with the same amount of productivity. Or maybe even better productivity! But you’re probably right, the future will never get any better, this device is pointless and will never lead to better versions of itself or point to other ways of working. Thank you, there’s no telling where we might end up without true believers of the status quo like yourself.
      - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
        [flagged]
        greedo 3y ago
        The people who have actually used the VP have said text rendering is excellent.
        BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
        [flagged]
        3y ago
- fooker 3y ago
  > But if you spot something's off, you need to adjust it. Go directly for the kill, and make that surgical series of edits. LLMs are still a really immature technology. The hype is about where it could go in future, not necessarily where it is now. Think about when compilers were immature technology, and the science of parsing/etc and optimizations were not well understood. You could make the exact same argument you have made now about the need of editing assembly or machine code by hand when the compiler doesn't get it right. It was indeed common practice to do this well into the 1980s. That, and inline assembly is increasingly unnecessary now.
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    None of what I said is restricted to the current state of LLMs. I was speaking very broadly about the nature of AI in our world, and going back to the creation of DNA...

by fooker 3y ago

>To code, for example, you need to hook a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I have a hunch that coding as we know it is going to look very different in ~5-10 years.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago

Maybe, but not in terms of needing code. You see, the rules of formal languages that encode formal rules of system constraints pre-date computers by centuries. Think of math proofs, for example. Sure, we can encode symbols as emojis, or geometric figures or whatever. But in the end, it's sequences of symbols, that's the nature of it. And tapping symbols one by one with a headset will suck, no matter how programming looks. The rules of formal languages that encode formal rules of system constraints pre-date in fact our species too. Think about what DNA is. Oh yeah, spooky, isn't it. A sequence of symbols (GTCA) encoding a sequence of more complex symbols (proteins). Spooky! But yes, DNA is our code. And it works the same as our programming code. Now I know where you're going. LLMs. Let's assume an LLM writes the code for you. You still have to read it, which you can do fine with a headset (if it's not as encapsulating and heavy, and with short battery life as Vision Pro v1). But if you spot something's off, you need to adjust it. Go directly for the kill, and make that surgical series of edits. You know? Or... maybe you can spend the rest of the day hopelessly trying to explain to Siri 2030 year edition what you want to do, instead of going in and doing it, for that "last mile". Because if AI can do the last mile itself, to the point you don't need to even verify it... first, that's the fast way to AI shipping code we don't understand and basically giving up our entire civilization to it. And second... we don't need to code, but we also won't need to exist, and therefore not need headsets. So in the worldlines where we DO exist... Vision Pro sucks for coding, because it's a shitty human interface to editing code. And in the worldlines where we DO NOT exist... Vision Pro sucks for coding, because AI doesn't need headsets.

greedo 3y ago
You do realize you can use a keyboard with this? And that the VP can plug in for infinite power?
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  I realize yes. And do you realize if you'll be using keyboard and mouse you may as well not literally wear a computer *on your head*? Are you aware of displays? They can support themselves. On desks. Or wall mounts. Compared to Vision Pro it feels like magic. Self-supporting displays. It's the future. Everything is about to change when people learn about it.
  - musictubes 3y ago
    And do you realize that’s by taking the displays off of your desk you can have more of them? Oh, at any size and any location you want. You can continue using the input devices you like but now have as many displays as you want and you can take it with you easily. You assume you will hate it, maybe you will. But maybe the future won’t involve dedicated furniture to put things on and cables connecting them. Maybe you’ll be able to work wherever you want and with the same amount of productivity. Or maybe even better productivity! But you’re probably right, the future will never get any better, this device is pointless and will never lead to better versions of itself or point to other ways of working. Thank you, there’s no telling where we might end up without true believers of the status quo like yourself.
    - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - greedo 3y ago
        The people who have actually used the VP have said text rendering is excellent.
        BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
        [flagged]
        3y ago
fooker 3y ago
> But if you spot something's off, you need to adjust it. Go directly for the kill, and make that surgical series of edits. LLMs are still a really immature technology. The hype is about where it could go in future, not necessarily where it is now. Think about when compilers were immature technology, and the science of parsing/etc and optimizations were not well understood. You could make the exact same argument you have made now about the need of editing assembly or machine code by hand when the compiler doesn't get it right. It was indeed common practice to do this well into the 1980s. That, and inline assembly is increasingly unnecessary now.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  None of what I said is restricted to the current state of LLMs. I was speaking very broadly about the nature of AI in our world, and going back to the creation of DNA...