5 ms·

When I look into the future, and I know that I really can't, one thing I really believe in is that there will be a shift in how quality will be perceived. With

When I look into the future, and I know that I really can't, one thing I really believe in is that there will be a shift in how quality will be perceived. With all things around me there is a sense that technology is to be a saviour for many very important things - ev's, medicine, it, finance etc. At the same time it is more and more clear to me that technology is used primarily to grow a market, government, country etc. But it does that by layering on top of already leaking abstractions. It's like solving a problem by only trying to solvent be its symptoms. Quality has a sense of slowness to it which I believe will be a necessary feat, both due to the fact that curing symptoms will fall short and because I believe that the human species simply cannot cope with the challenges by constantly applying more abstractions. The notion about going faster is wrong to me, mostly because I as a human being do not believe that quality is done by not understanding the fundamentals of a challenge, and by trying to solve it for superficial gains is simply unintelligent. LLMs is a disaster to our field because it caters to the average human fallacy of wanting to reach a goal but without putting in the real work to do so. The real work is of course to understand what it is that you are really trying to solve with applying assumptions about correctness. Luckily not all of us is trying to move faster but instead we are sharpening our minds and tools while we keep re-learing the fundamentals and applying thoughtful decisions in hope to make quality that will stand the test of time.

0xedd 3y ago
[flagged]
- staunton 3y ago
  Presumably, this was supposed to show how parent's arguments can equally well argue for the opposite or for something nonsensical. However, it seems incoherent to me (in a way that parent does not). I don't even know what it's arguing for... I guess something literally about sewing?
  - c0pium 3y ago
    It’s a style-transfer of OPs post onto Luddites. This same tired argument in 3 parts gets made every time a potentially job-destroying technology gets introduced or discussed. Since nobody has made the concluding argument yet, I’ll supply it; the Luddites were correct that it (mechanization) would destroy their lucrative profession, they missed the degree to which it would enable many other lucrative professions, and they were right that many Luddites would not make the transition. Society was net better off but there were definitely losers in the transition.
  - binary132 3y ago
    I think he’s making a point about mechanization inevitably causing both accelerated progress and also, in some ways, reduced quality. There’s a challenge to grapple with there for traditional craftsmanship.
- gjgtcbkj 3y ago
  This kind of sounds like it was written by AI
jstummbillig 3y ago
> The real work is of course to understand what it is that you are really trying to solve with applying assumptions about correctness. In how far do you think LLMs stand in the way of that? My experience has been very much the opposite: Instead of holding the hard part of the process up by digging through messy apis or libraries, LLMs (at least, in their current form but I suspect that this will theoretically simply remain true) make it painfully obvious when my thinking about a task of any significance is not sound. To get anywhere with a LLM, you need to write. To write, you have to think. Very often I find the most beneficial part of the LLM-coding-process is a blended chat backlog that I can refer back to, consisting of me carefully phrasing what it is that I want to do, being poked by a LLM, and me through this process finding gaps and clarifying my thoughts at the same time. I find this tremendously useful, specially when shaping the app early, to keep track of what I thought needed to be done and then later being able to reconsider if that is actually still the case.
- peterashford 3y ago
  This aligns with my thinking about the utility of LLMs: they're rubber duck programming as a service
- Yodel0914 3y ago
  I don't get so much from going over previous conversations, but needing to articulate a problem well enough to ask chatgpt a question is extremely useful. Far moreso than coming up with search phrases, I find.
- weikju 3y ago
  This is how I’ve been most successful so far at using LLMs. They help me poke as you say at the problem until a satisfying solution appears or until I have enough info to know what to look for.
  - sph 3y ago
    But that is a terrible way of dealing with hard problems. I recommend Rich Hickey's "Hammock Driven Development" talk. You don't solve hard problems by poking at it repeatedly until something works, that is the recipe for terrible code and abstractions. You instead take a step back from your computer and digest it until you come with a well-understood solution. This approach is what separates the experienced engineer from the junior. Code is the least of your problems.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> LLMs is a disaster to our field because it caters to the average human fallacy of wanting to reach a goal but without putting in the real work to do so. It's a tool. It doesn't make sense to blame the tool. Is it the screwdriver's fault it gets used as a hammer? Or a murder weapon? Used intelligently Copilot & Co can help. It can handle the boilerplate, the mundane and free up the human element to focus on the heavy lifting. All that aside, it's early days. It's too early to pass judgement. And it seems unlikely it's going to go away.
norir 3y ago
There is an interview with the great jazz pianist Bill Evans (conducted by his brother) in which he muses that most amateur musicians make the mistake of overplaying. They go out to the club and hear a professional and they come home and try to approximate what the professional does. What they end up with is a confused mess with no foundation. He insists that you have to learn to be satisfied with doing the simple things and gradually building up a stronger foundation. I think his insight applies nearly as well to using code generated by an ai.
bamboozled 3y ago
When I look into the future, and I know that I really can't, one thing I really believe in is that there will be a shift in how quality will be perceived. IKEA furniture is a great example of this. I build my own furniture and being around it is a much much nicer thing than some piece of cardboard from IKEA.but it seems like cost, soeed an convenience are the most important thing in peoples minds.
- 76SlashDolphin 3y ago
  But the tradeoff of cost and convenience vs quality is everywhere in life. Most people (including me) do not have the time, money, nor (in my case most importantly) workspace to build their own furniture. IKEA and other budget furnishing companies are a perfect solution for people in this situation and I can buy a handmade piece of furniture if I ever feel that something is not up to quality.
sanroot99 3y ago
Very well put, like what's the point of doing work of the art if the art don't accompany artist story of struggle, mental experience and creative expression while reaching to end form of his art. What ai model does is rob us all inate experience and give us only cream of end result, it's is like watching porn instead of forming real relationship with person to win the sex.

0xedd 3y ago

[flagged]

staunton 3y ago
Presumably, this was supposed to show how parent's arguments can equally well argue for the opposite or for something nonsensical. However, it seems incoherent to me (in a way that parent does not). I don't even know what it's arguing for... I guess something literally about sewing?
- c0pium 3y ago
  It’s a style-transfer of OPs post onto Luddites. This same tired argument in 3 parts gets made every time a potentially job-destroying technology gets introduced or discussed. Since nobody has made the concluding argument yet, I’ll supply it; the Luddites were correct that it (mechanization) would destroy their lucrative profession, they missed the degree to which it would enable many other lucrative professions, and they were right that many Luddites would not make the transition. Society was net better off but there were definitely losers in the transition.
- binary132 3y ago
  I think he’s making a point about mechanization inevitably causing both accelerated progress and also, in some ways, reduced quality. There’s a challenge to grapple with there for traditional craftsmanship.
gjgtcbkj 3y ago
This kind of sounds like it was written by AI

jstummbillig 3y ago

> The real work is of course to understand what it is that you are really trying to solve with applying assumptions about correctness. In how far do you think LLMs stand in the way of that? My experience has been very much the opposite: Instead of holding the hard part of the process up by digging through messy apis or libraries, LLMs (at least, in their current form but I suspect that this will theoretically simply remain true) make it painfully obvious when my thinking about a task of any significance is not sound. To get anywhere with a LLM, you need to write. To write, you have to think. Very often I find the most beneficial part of the LLM-coding-process is a blended chat backlog that I can refer back to, consisting of me carefully phrasing what it is that I want to do, being poked by a LLM, and me through this process finding gaps and clarifying my thoughts at the same time. I find this tremendously useful, specially when shaping the app early, to keep track of what I thought needed to be done and then later being able to reconsider if that is actually still the case.

peterashford 3y ago
This aligns with my thinking about the utility of LLMs: they're rubber duck programming as a service
Yodel0914 3y ago
I don't get so much from going over previous conversations, but needing to articulate a problem well enough to ask chatgpt a question is extremely useful. Far moreso than coming up with search phrases, I find.
weikju 3y ago
This is how I’ve been most successful so far at using LLMs. They help me poke as you say at the problem until a satisfying solution appears or until I have enough info to know what to look for.
- sph 3y ago
  But that is a terrible way of dealing with hard problems. I recommend Rich Hickey's "Hammock Driven Development" talk. You don't solve hard problems by poking at it repeatedly until something works, that is the recipe for terrible code and abstractions. You instead take a step back from your computer and digest it until you come with a well-understood solution. This approach is what separates the experienced engineer from the junior. Code is the least of your problems.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> LLMs is a disaster to our field because it caters to the average human fallacy of wanting to reach a goal but without putting in the real work to do so. It's a tool. It doesn't make sense to blame the tool. Is it the screwdriver's fault it gets used as a hammer? Or a murder weapon? Used intelligently Copilot & Co can help. It can handle the boilerplate, the mundane and free up the human element to focus on the heavy lifting. All that aside, it's early days. It's too early to pass judgement. And it seems unlikely it's going to go away.

norir 3y ago

There is an interview with the great jazz pianist Bill Evans (conducted by his brother) in which he muses that most amateur musicians make the mistake of overplaying. They go out to the club and hear a professional and they come home and try to approximate what the professional does. What they end up with is a confused mess with no foundation. He insists that you have to learn to be satisfied with doing the simple things and gradually building up a stronger foundation. I think his insight applies nearly as well to using code generated by an ai.

bamboozled 3y ago

When I look into the future, and I know that I really can't, one thing I really believe in is that there will be a shift in how quality will be perceived. IKEA furniture is a great example of this. I build my own furniture and being around it is a much much nicer thing than some piece of cardboard from IKEA.but it seems like cost, soeed an convenience are the most important thing in peoples minds.

76SlashDolphin 3y ago
But the tradeoff of cost and convenience vs quality is everywhere in life. Most people (including me) do not have the time, money, nor (in my case most importantly) workspace to build their own furniture. IKEA and other budget furnishing companies are a perfect solution for people in this situation and I can buy a handmade piece of furniture if I ever feel that something is not up to quality.

sanroot99 3y ago

Very well put, like what's the point of doing work of the art if the art don't accompany artist story of struggle, mental experience and creative expression while reaching to end form of his art. What ai model does is rob us all inate experience and give us only cream of end result, it's is like watching porn instead of forming real relationship with person to win the sex.