3 ms·

By the time the tech debt of the vibe code hits, new models will appear which can still handle it. And we are close to being able to point the model at the repo

By the time the tech debt of the vibe code hits, new models will appear which can still handle it. And we are close to being able to point the model at the repo and ask it to "reduce the tech debt". Then it becomes a money problem - put the agents on a 24/7 reduce the code debt mission.

dustingetz 1y ago
If the cost per unit delivery (say LOC) grows something like polynomial due to interconnectedness, surely it is superlinear for even a state of art formal reasoning system let alone imperative langs, it will outstrip our ability to build energy infrastructure. If the cost growth is exponential due to state space explosion, it will outstrip the energy in the Sun. How does HN think these factors will balance?
- dist-epoch 1y ago
  Yet humans can handle and untangle spaghetti code without requiring fusion power plants. There is no fundamental reason why LLM would fail to do it too. And as they improve the code they produce is better architected. So the situation is improving at both ends.
  - dustingetz 1y ago
    humans cannot in any sufficiently large project, for example government contracts and the entire banking sector.
    - dist-epoch 1y ago
      They can. They are not allowed due to "reasons".
      - cadamsdotcom 1y ago
        It’s rational - the risk of breaking things by changing them outweighs the ongoing costs of keeping them the same - including developer sanity, unfortunately.
        danielbln 1y ago
        An often overlooked point in these LLM vs human debates: the majority of humans are extremely fallible.
maaaaattttt 1y ago
I think that's the bet many investors are making at the moment. And if it pays off, it will do so big times as it will be almost impossible to maintain a codebase without an LLM. Therefore making them indispensable for the company using/working on said codebase. If they continue to perform linearly from the point we are now, though, then the only option is to continue making better LLMs capable of comprehending the relative mess the previous one made. Which at the limit means betting on AGI. If for some reason the progress doesn't come fast enough and too many people are making that bet, then developpers (the ones left) can expect even higher salaries than before...
- dustingetz 1y ago
  The investors may be right, and yet, this is a collapse vector in “The Collapse of Complex Societies”, in one sentence, “societies collapse when they reach a point of rapidly declining marginal returns on their investments in problem solving capacity.” So we’d expect an outcome somewhere between “market dynamics will resolve this” and “war and/or violent revolution”
dgb23 1y ago
Why is producing all that waste and complexity necessary in the first place? We often get distracted by benefits and forget to look at the costs. And we often overdo things to a degree where previous wisdom has to be re-discovered again and again. Having experienced a couple of hype cycles, I learned that the sensible thing is to narrow down what the new thing is useful for specifically. And all that's assuming that the prediction holds. I don't see any clear signs of whether the usefulness and precision is primarily a quantitative or qualitative issue.

dustingetz 1y ago

If the cost per unit delivery (say LOC) grows something like polynomial due to interconnectedness, surely it is superlinear for even a state of art formal reasoning system let alone imperative langs, it will outstrip our ability to build energy infrastructure. If the cost growth is exponential due to state space explosion, it will outstrip the energy in the Sun. How does HN think these factors will balance?

dist-epoch 1y ago
Yet humans can handle and untangle spaghetti code without requiring fusion power plants. There is no fundamental reason why LLM would fail to do it too. And as they improve the code they produce is better architected. So the situation is improving at both ends.
- dustingetz 1y ago
  humans cannot in any sufficiently large project, for example government contracts and the entire banking sector.
  - dist-epoch 1y ago
    They can. They are not allowed due to "reasons".
    - cadamsdotcom 1y ago
      It’s rational - the risk of breaking things by changing them outweighs the ongoing costs of keeping them the same - including developer sanity, unfortunately.
      - danielbln 1y ago
        An often overlooked point in these LLM vs human debates: the majority of humans are extremely fallible.

maaaaattttt 1y ago

I think that's the bet many investors are making at the moment. And if it pays off, it will do so big times as it will be almost impossible to maintain a codebase without an LLM. Therefore making them indispensable for the company using/working on said codebase. If they continue to perform linearly from the point we are now, though, then the only option is to continue making better LLMs capable of comprehending the relative mess the previous one made. Which at the limit means betting on AGI. If for some reason the progress doesn't come fast enough and too many people are making that bet, then developpers (the ones left) can expect even higher salaries than before...

dustingetz 1y ago
The investors may be right, and yet, this is a collapse vector in “The Collapse of Complex Societies”, in one sentence, “societies collapse when they reach a point of rapidly declining marginal returns on their investments in problem solving capacity.” So we’d expect an outcome somewhere between “market dynamics will resolve this” and “war and/or violent revolution”

dgb23 1y ago

Why is producing all that waste and complexity necessary in the first place? We often get distracted by benefits and forget to look at the costs. And we often overdo things to a degree where previous wisdom has to be re-discovered again and again. Having experienced a couple of hype cycles, I learned that the sensible thing is to narrow down what the new thing is useful for specifically. And all that's assuming that the prediction holds. I don't see any clear signs of whether the usefulness and precision is primarily a quantitative or qualitative issue.