4 ms·
You just asked it to design or implement? If o3 can design it, that means it’s using open source schedulers as reference. Did you think about opening up a few
by csto12 1y ago
You just asked it to design or implement?
If o3 can design it, that means it’s using open source schedulers as reference. Did you think about opening up a few open source projects to see how they were doing things in those two weeks you were designing?
- mprast 1y agoyeah unless you have very specific requirements I think the baseline here is not building/designing it yourself but setting up an off-the-shelf commercial or OSS solution, which I doubt would take two weeks...
- torginus 1y agoDunno, in work we wanted to implement a task runner that we could use to periodically queue tasks through a web UI - it would then spin up resources on AWS and track the progress and archive the results. We looked at the existing solutions, and concluded that customizing them to meet all our requirements would be a giant effort. Meanwhile I fed the requirement doc into Claude Sonnet, and with about 3 days of prompting and debugging we had a bespoke solution that did exactly what we needed.
- codingwagie 1y agothe future is more custom software designed by ai, not less. alot of frameworks will disappear once you can build sophisticated systems yourself. people are missing this
- rsynnott 1y agoThat's a future with a _lot_ more bugs.
- codingwagie 1y agoyoure assuming humans built it. also, a ton of complexity in software engineering is really due to having to fit a business domain into a string of interfaces in different libraries and technical infrastructure
- 9rx 1y agoWhat else is going to build it? Lions? The only real complexity in software is describing it. There is no evidence that the tools are going to ever help with that. Maybe some kind of device attached directly to the brain that can sidestep the parts that get in the way, but that is assuming some part of the brain is more efficient than it seems through the pathways we experience it through. It could also be that the brain is just fatally flawed.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- cmsj 1y agoThat's a future paid for by the effort of creating current frameworks, and it's a stagnant future where every "sophisticated system" is just re-hashing the last human frameworks ever created.
- namaria 1y agoBingo. LLMs are consuming data. They cannot generate new information, they can only give back what already exists or mangle it. It is inevitable that they will degrade the total sum of information.
- codingwagie 1y agowhy would I do that kind of research if it can identify the problem I am trying to solve, and spit out the exact solution. also, it was a rough implementation adapted to my exact tech stack
- kazinator 1y agoSo you could stick your own copyright notice on the result, for one thing.
- ben_w 1y agoWhat's the point holding copyright on a new technical solution, to a problem that can be solved by anyone asking an existing AI, trained on last year's internet, independently of your new copyright?
- kazinator 1y agoAll sorts of stuff containing no original ideas is copyrighted. It legally belongs to someone and they can license it to others, etc. E.g. pop songs with no original chord progressions or melodies, and hackneyed lyrics are still copyrighted. Plagiarized and uncopyrightable code is radioactive; it can't be pulled into FOSS or commercial codebases alike.
- alabastervlog 1y agoSomeone raised the point in another recent HN LLM thread that the primary productivity benefit of LLMs in programing is the copyright laundering. The argument went that the main reason the now-ancient push for code reuse failed to deliver anything close to its hypothetical maximum benefit was because copyright got in the way. Result: tons and tons of wheel-reinvention, like, to the point that most of what programmers do day to day is reinvent wheels. LLMs essentially provide fine-grained contextual search of existing code, while also stripping copyright from whatever they find. Ta-da! Problem solved.
- cmsj 1y agoThere is one very specific risk worth mentioning: AI code is a potentially existential crisis for Open Source. An ecosystem that depends on copyright can't exist if its codebase is overrun by un-copyrightable code.