46 ms·
Andrej Karpathy: Software in the era of AI [video]
- pera 1y agoIs it possible to vibe code NFT smart contracts with Software 3.0?
- kaycey2022 1y agoI hope this excellent talk brings some much needed sense into the discourse around vibe coding.
- diggan 1y agoIf anything I wished the conversation turned away from "vibe-coding" which was essentially coined as a "lol look at this go" thing, but media and corporations somehow picked up as "This is the new workflow all developers are adopting". LLMs as another tool in your toolbox? Sure, use it where it makes sense, don't try to make them do 100% of everything. LLMs as a "English to E2E product I'm charging for"? Lets maybe make sure the thing works well as a tool before letting it be responsible for stuff.
- longhaul 1y agoQA is what SEs will be doing - testing , followed by feedback to LLMs. Why can’t just product folks do this eventually w/o SEs?
- klysm 1y agoProduct folks don’t know what they want a lot of the time and don’t know what’s possible
- bicepjai 1y agoA lot of people reach for the “electricity” analogy whenever a tech wave crests—crypto, cloud, and now LLMs. With crypto, the comparison always felt forced: the utility was niche, and the energy cost was hard to justify. LLMs, on the other hand, are genuinely useful, but is the electricity comparison still valid ?
- MoonGhost 1y agoHe didn't mention multi-modal models. Probably because they don't fit in the oversimplified picture.
- nickalex 1y agoI believe AI relies too heavily on logic—and that, surprisingly, can be a disadvantage. Logical solutions don’t always work in real-world situations, because logic isn't the same as creativity. And creativity is essential.
- AIorNot 1y agoLove his analogies and clear eyed picture
- pyman 1y ago"We're not building Iron Man robots. We're building Iron Man suits"
- reducesuffering 1y ago[flagged]
- throwawayoldie 1y agoI'm old enough to remember when Twitter was new, and for a moment it felt like the old utopian promise of the Internet finally fulfilled: ordinary people would be able to talk, one-on-one and unmediated, with other ordinary people across the world, and in the process we'd find out that we're all more similar than different and mainly want the same things out of life, leading to a new era of peace and empathy. It was a nice feeling while it lasted.
- _kb 1y agoBelieve it or not, humans did in fact have forms of written language and communication prior to twitter.
- jppope 1y agoWell that showed up significantly faster than they said it would.
- dang 1y agoThe team adapted quickly, which is a good sign. I believe getting the videos out sooner (as in why-not-immediately) is going to be a priority in the future.
- seneca 1y agoClassic under promise and over deliver. I'm glad they got it out quickly.
- dang 1y agoMe too. It was my favorite talk of the ones I saw.
- diggan 1y agoI did like it to, but haven't seen any of the others, and usually don't like sitting through talks rather than reading transcripts. But you got me curious, what other talks from the day/event would be worth watching in your mind?
- dang 1y agoI also liked Chelsea Finn's robot talk. (I didn't see all the talks, so please don't take absence of recommendation as recommendation of absence!)
- gchamonlive 1y agoI think it's interesting to juxtapose traditional coding, neural network weights and prompts because in many areas -- like the example of the self driving module having code being replaced by neural networks tuned to the target dataset representing the domain -- this will be quite useful. However I think it's important to make it clear that given the hardware constraints of many environments the applicability of what's being called software 2.0 and 3.0 will be severely limited. So instead of being replacements, these paradigms are more like extra tools in the tool belt. Code and prompts will live side by side, being used when convenient, but none a panacea.
- karpathy 1y agoI kind of say it in words (agreeing with you) but I agree the versioning is a bit confusing analogy because it usually additionally implies some kind of improvement. When I’m just trying to distinguish them as very different software categories.
- miki123211 1y agoWhat do you think about structured outputs / JSON mode / constrained decoding / whatever you wish to call it? To me, it's a criminally underused tool. While "raw" LLMs are cool, they're annoying to use as anything but chatbots, as their output is unpredictable and basically impossible to parse programmatically. Structured outputs solve that problem neatly. In a way, they're "neural networks without the training". They can be used to solve similar problems as traditional neural networks, things like image classification or extracting information from messy text, but all they require is a Zod or Pydantic type definition and a prompt. No renting GPUs, labeling data and tuning hyperparameters necessary. They often also improve LLM performance significantly. Imagine you're trying to extract calories per 100g of product, but some product give you calories per serving and a serving size, calories per pound etc. The naive way to do this is a prompt like "give me calories per 100g", but that forces the LLM to do arithmetic, and LLMs are bad at arithmetic. With structured outputs, you just give it the fifteen different formats that you expect to see as alternatives, and use some simple Python to turn them all into calories per 100g on the backend side.
- nico 1y agoThank you YC for posting this before the talk became deprecated[1] 1: https://x.com/karpathy/status/1935077692258558443 https://x.com/karpathy/status/1935077692258558443
- sandslash 1y agoWe couldn't let that happen!
- anythingworks 1y agoloved the analogies! Karpathy is consistently one of the clearest thinkers out there. interesting that Waymo could do uninterrupted trips back in 2013, wonder what took them so long to expand? regulation? tailend of driving optimization issues? noticed one of the slides had a cross over 'AGI 2027'... ai-2027.com :)
- AlotOfReading 1y agoYou don't "solve" autonomous driving as such. There's a long, slow grind of gradually improving things until failures become rare enough.
- petesergeant 1y agoI wonder at what point all the self-driving code becomes replaceable with a multimodal generalist model with the prompt “drive safely”
- AlotOfReading 1y agoOne of the issues with deploying models like that is the lack of clear, widely accepted ways to validate comprehensive safety and absence of unreasonable risk. If that can be solved, or regulators start accepting answers like "our software doesn't speed in over 95% of situations", then they'll become more common.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anon7000 1y agoVery advanced machine learning models are used in current self driving cars. It all depends what the model is trying to accomplish. I have a hard time seeing a generalist prompt-based generative model ever beating a model specifically designed to drive cars. The models are just designed for different, specific purposes
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AdieuToLogic 1y agoIt's an interesting presentation, no doubt. The analogies eventually fail as analogies usually do. A recurring theme presented, however, is that LLM's are somehow not controlled by the corporations which expose them as a service. The presenter made certain to identify three interested actors (governments, corporations, "regular people") and how LLM offerings are not controlled by governments. This is a bit disingenuous. Also, the OS analogy doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps this is because I do not subscribe to LLM's having reasoning capabilities nor able to reliably provide services an OS-like system can be shown to provide. A minor critique regarding the analogy equating LLM's to mainframes: Mainframes in the 1960's never "ran in the cloud" as it did not exist. They still do not "run in the cloud" unless one includes simulators. Terminals in the 1960's - 1980's did not use networks. They used dedicated serial cables or dial-up modems to connect either directly or through stat-mux concentrators. "Compute" was not "batched over users." Mainframes either had jobs submitted and ran via operators (indirect execution) or supported multi-user time slicing (such as found in Unix).
- furyofantares 1y ago> The presenter made certain to identify three interested actors (governments, corporations, "regular people") and how LLM offerings are not controlled by governments. This is a bit disingenuous. I don't think that's what he said, he was identifying the first customers and uses.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago>> A recurring theme presented, however, is that LLM's are somehow not controlled by the corporations which expose them as a service. The presenter made certain to identify three interested actors (governments, corporations, "regular people") and how LLM offerings are not controlled by governments. This is a bit disingenuous. > I don't think that's what he said, he was identifying the first customers and uses. The portion of the presentation I am referencing starts at or near 12:50[0]. Here is what was said: I wrote about this one particular property that strikes me as very different this time around. It's that LLM's like flip they flip the direction of technology diffusion that is usually present in technology. So for example with electricity, cryptography, computing, flight, internet, GPS, lots of new transformative that have not been around. Typically it is the government and corporations that are the first users because it's new expensive etc. and it only later diffuses to consumer. But I feel like LLM's are kind of like flipped around. So maybe with early computers it was all about ballistics and military use, but with LLM's it's all about how do you boil an egg or something like that. This is certainly like a lot of my use. And so it's really fascinating to me that we have a new magical computer it's like helping me boil an egg. It's not helping the government do something really crazy like some military ballistics or some special technology. Note the identification of historic government interest in computing along with a flippant "regular person" scenario in the context of "technology diffusion." You are right in that the presenter identified "first customers", but this is mentioned in passing when viewed in context. Perhaps I should not have characterized this as "a recurring theme." Instead, a better categorization might be: The presenter minimized the control corporations have by keeping focus on governmental topics and trivial customer use-cases. 0 - https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?t=770 https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?t=770
- wjohn 1y agoThe comparison of our current methods of interacting with LLMs (back and forth text) to old-school terminals is pretty interesting. I think there's still a lot work to be done to optimize how we interact with these models, especially for non-dev consumers.
- informal007 1y agoAudio maybe the better option.
- recursive 1y agoBased on my experience with voicemail, I'd say that audio is not always best, and is sometimes in the running for worst.
- nodesocket 1y agollms.txt makes a lot of sense, especially for LLMs to interact with http APIs autonomously. Seems like you could set a LLM loose and like the Google Bot have it start converting all html pages into llms.txt. Man, the future is crazy.
- llms-txt 1y ago[dead]
- nothrabannosir 1y agoCouldn’t believe my eyes. The www is truly bankrupt. If anyone has a browser plugin which automatically redirects to llms.txt sign me up. Website too confusing for humans? Add more design, modals, newsletter pop ups, cookie banners, ads, … Website too confusing for LLMs? Add an accessible, clean, ad-free, concise, high entropy, plain text summary of your website. Make sure to hide it from the humans! PS: it should be /.well-known/llms.txt but that feels futile at this point.. PPS: I enjoyed the talk, thanks.
- andrethegiant 1y ago> If anyone has a browser plugin which automatically redirects to llms.txt sign me up. Not a browser plugin, but you can prefix URLs with `pure.md/` to get the pure markdown of that page. It's not quite a 1:1 to llms.txt as it doesn't explain the entire domain, but works well for one-off pages. [disclaimer: I'm the maintainer]
- FergusArgyll 1y agoI've been actually using it for my own consumption (I am not an llm...) It's great! thanks
- jph00 1y agoThe next version of the llms.txt proposal will allow an llms.txt file to be added at any level of a path, which isn't compatible with /.well-known. (I'm the creator of the llms.txt proposal.)
- dang 1y agoThis was my favorite talk at AISUS because it was so full of concrete insights I hadn't heard before and (even better) practical points about what to build now, in the immediate future. (To mention just one example: the "autonomy slider".) If it were up to me, which it is not, I would try to optimize the next AISUS for more of this. I felt like I was getting smarter as the talk went on.
- kaycebasques 1y agoOn one hand, I think Karpathy is a gifted educator in a way that's not repeatable as a science. On the other, if the conference leaders next year told every presenter to watch this talk and emulate how Karpathy focuses on concrete insights and suggests what to build now, then the overall quality of presentations would probably trend higher.
- sneak 1y agoCan we please stop standardizing on putting things in the root? /.well-known/ exists for this purpose. example.com/.well-known/llms.txt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI
- andrethegiant 1y agohttps://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2 https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2
- jph00 1y agoYou can't just put things there any time you want - the RFC requires that they go through a registration process. Having said that, this won't work for llms.txt, since in the next version of the proposal they'll be allowed at any level of the path, not only the root.
- politelemon 1y ago> You can't just put things there any time you want - the RFC requires that they go through a registration process. Actually, I can for two reasons. First is of course the RFC mentions that items can be registered after the fact, if it's found that a particular well-known suffix is being widely used. But the second is a bit more chaotic - website owners are under no obligation to consult a registry, much like port registrations; in many cases they won't even know it exists and may think of it as a place that should reflect their mental model. It can make things awkward and difficult though, that is true, but that comes with the free text nature of the well-known space. That's made evident in the Github issue linked, a large group of very smart people didn't know that there was a registry for it. https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2#issuecomment-2327781777 https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2#issuecommen...
- jph00 1y agoThere was no "large group of very smart people" behind llms.txt. It was just me. And I'm very familiar with the registry, and it doesn't work for this particular case IMO (although other folks are welcome to register it if they feel otherwise, of course).
- mikewarot 1y agoA few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that when you're vibe coding, you're consulting a "genie", much like in the fables, you almost never get what you asked for, but if your wishes are small, you might just get what you want. The primagen reviewed this article[1] a few days ago, and (I think) that's where I heard about it. (Can't re-watch it now, it's members only) 8( [1] https://medium.com/@drewwww/the-gambler-and-the-genie-08491d96aee6 https://medium.com/@drewwww/the-gambler-and-the-genie-08491d...
- fudged71 1y ago“You are an expert 10x software developer. Make me a billion dollar app.” Yeah this checks out
- anythingworks 1y agothat's a really good analogy! It feels like wicked joke that llms behave in such a way that they're both intelligent and stupid at the same time
- fnord77 1y agoHim claiming govts don't use AI or are behind the curve is not accurate. Modern military drones are very much AI agents
- password4321 1y ago[dead]
- manyaoman 1y agoGovernments obviously lead in military tech, but do you think they have access to better AI (in general) than consumers? Unless they do, I think it's fair to say that governments are behind the curve, since consumers tend to adopt things more quickly.
- diggan 1y ago> but do you think they have access to better AI (in general) than consumers? Absolutely. One of the top AI labs today is OpenAI, with ties to the US military, not least through Paul M. Nakasone, but also active contracts with the military, announced just a couple of days ago > In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded OpenAI a $200 million one-year contract to develop AI tools for military and national security applications. OpenAI announced a new program, OpenAI for Government, to give federal, state, and local governments access to its models, including ChatGPT. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Use_by_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Use_by_military It would be foolish to assume those collaborations are just about API usage with the same models that consumer have access to, there is definitely deeper collaborations than that.
- fnord77 1y agowhat consumer AI can send a vehicle a long distance, locate and track things of interest, and then decide to take actions against those things of interest? Imagine a consumer AI that could go to the grocery store, find your favorite loaf of bread and bring it back.
- practal 1y agoGreat talk, thanks for putting it online so quickly. I liked the idea of making the generation / verification loop go brrr, and one way to do this is to make verification not just a human task, but a machine task, where possible. Yes, I am talking about formal verification, of course! That also goes nicely together with "keeping the AI on a tight leash". It seems to clash though with "English is the new programming language". So the question is, can you hide the formal stuff under the hood, just like you can hide a calculator tool for arithmetic? Use informal English on the surface, while some of it is interpreted as a formal expression, put to work, and then reflected back in English? I think that is possible, if you have a formal language and logic that is flexible enough, and close enough to informal English. Yes, I am talking about abstraction logic [1], of course :-) So the goal would be to have English (German, ...) as the ONLY programming language, invisibly backed underneath by abstraction logic. [1] http://abstractionlogic.com http://abstractionlogic.com
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago> So the question is, can you hide the formal stuff under the hood, just like you can hide a calculator tool for arithmetic? Use informal English on the surface, while some of it is interpreted as a formal expression, put to work, and then reflected back in English? The problem with trying to make "English -> formal language -> (anything else)" work is that informality is, by definition, not a formal specification and therefore subject to ambiguity. The inverse is not nearly as difficult to support. Much like how a property in an API initially defined as being optional cannot be made mandatory without potentially breaking clients, whereas making a mandatory property optional can be backward compatible. IOW, the cardinality of "0 .. 1" is a strict superset of "1".
- practal 1y ago> The problem with trying to make "English -> formal language -> (anything else)" work is that informality is, by definition, not a formal specification and therefore subject to ambiguity. The inverse is not nearly as difficult to support. Both directions are difficult and important. How do you determine when going from formal to informal that you got the right informal statement? If you can judge that, then you can also judge if a formal statement properly represents an informal one, or if there is a problem somewhere. If you detect a discrepancy, tell the user that their English is ambiguous and that they should be more specific.
- hgl 1y agoIt’s fascinating to think about what true GUI for LLM could be like. It immediately makes me think a LLM that can generate a customized GUI for the topic at hand where you can interact with in a non-linear way.
- nbbaier 1y agoI love this concept and would love to know where to look for people working on this type of thing!
- dpkirchner 1y agoLike a HyperCard application?
- necrodome 1y agoWe (https://vibes.diy/ https://vibes.diy/) are betting on this
- diggan 1y agoBorder-line off-topic, but since you're flagrantly self-promoting, might as well add some more rule breakage to it. You know websites/apps who let you enter text/details and then not displaying sign in/up screen until you submit it, so you feel like "Oh but I already filled it out, might as well sign up"? They really suck, big time! It's disingenuous, misleading and wastes people's time. I had no interest in using your thing for real, but thought I'd try it out, potentially leave some feedback, but this bait-and-switch just made the whole thing feel sour and I'll probably try to actively avoid this and anything else I feel is related to it.
- necrodome 1y agoThanks for the benefit of the doubt. I typed that in a hurry, and it didn’t come out the way I intended. We had the idea that there’s a class of apps [1] that could really benefit from our tooling - mainly Fireproof, our local-first database, along with embedded LLM calling and image generation support. The app itself is open source, and the hosted version is free. Initially, there was no login or signup - you could just generate an app right away. We knew that came with risks, but we wanted to explore what a truly frictionless experience could look like. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for our LLM keys to start getting scraped, so the next best step was to implement rate limiting in the hosted version. [1] https://tools.simonwillison.net/ https://tools.simonwillison.net/
- bedit 1y agoI love the "people spirits" analogy. For casual tasks like vibecoding or boiling an egg, LLM errors aren't a big deal. But for critical work, we need rigorous checks—just like we do with human reasoning. That's the core of empirical science: we expect fallibility, so we verify. A great example is how early migration theories based on pottery were revised with better data like ancient DNA (see David Reich). Letting LLMs judge each other without solid external checks misses the point—leaderboard-style human rankings are often just as flawed.
- boxboxbox4 1y ago[dead]
- nilirl 1y agoWhere do these analogies break down? 1. Similar cost structure to electricity, but non-essential utility (currently)? 2. Like an operating system, but with non-determinism? 3. Like programming, but ...? Where does the programming analogy break down?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rudedogg 1y ago> programming The programming analogy is convenient but off. The joke has always been “the computer only does exactly what you tell it to do!” regarding logic bugs. Prompts and LLMs most certainly do not work like that. I loved the parallels with modern LLMs and time sharing he presented though.
- diggan 1y ago> Prompts and LLMs most certainly do not work like that. It quite literally works like that. The computer is now OS + user-land + LLM runner + ML architecture + weights + system prompt + user prompt. Taken together, and since you're adding in probabilities (by using ML/LLMs), you're quite literally getting "the computer only does exactly what you tell it to do!", it's just that we have added "but make slight variations to what tokens you select next" (temperature>0.0) sometimes, but it's still the same thing. Just like when you tell the computer to create encrypted content by using some seed. You're getting exactly what you asked for.
- politelemon 1y agoonly in English, and also non-deterministic.
- malux85 1y agoYeah, wherever possible I try to have the llm answer me in Python rather than English (especially when explaining new concepts) English is soooooo ambiguous
- sothatsit 1y agoI find Karpathy's focus on tightening the feedback loop between LLMs and humans interesting, because I've found I am the happiest when I extend the loop instead. When I have tried to "pair program" with an LLM, I have found it incredibly tedious, and not that useful. The insights it gives me are not that great if I'm optimising for response speed, and it just frustrates me rather than letting me go faster. Worse, often my brain just turns off while waiting for the LLM to respond. OTOH, when I work in a more async fashion, it feels freeing to just pass a problem to the AI. Then, I can stop thinking about it and work on something else. Later, I can come back to find the AI results, and I can proceed to adjust the prompt and re-generate, to slightly modify what the LLM produced, or sometimes to just accept its changes verbatim. I really like this process.
- geeunits 1y agoI would venture that 'tightening the feedback loop' isn't necessarily 'increasing the number of back and forth prompts'- and what you're saying you want is ultimately his argument. i.e. if integral enough it can almost guess what you're going to say next...
- sothatsit 1y agoI specifically do not want AI as an auto-correct, doing auto-predictions while I am typing. I find this interrupts my thinking process, and I've never been bottlenecked by typing speed anyway. I want AI as a "co-worker" providing an alternative perspective or implementing my specific instructions, and potentially filling in gaps I didn't think about in my prompt.
- jwblackwell 1y agoYeah I am currently enjoying giving the LLM relatively small chunks of code to write and then asking it to write accompanying tests. While I focus on testing the product myself. I then don't even bother to read the code it's written most of the time
- moralestapia 1y ago[flagged]
- dang 1y ago"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- moralestapia 1y agoWait ... but this is true. Maybe I missed a source but I assumed it was somehow common knowledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_Autopilot_crashes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_Autopilot_cras...
- dang 1y ago> Wait ... but this is true. (It's been a while since this has come up, so maybe I'll write a longer reply, in case it's useful to you and/or others.) There are two responses, both important. The first is that your comment included things that the site guidelines ask commenters to avoid: internet tropes, snark, shallow dismissals (all of which are in "but hey, the guy wrote a couple of fun tweets") as well as outright flamebait ("most likely criminal behavior"). None of that is about being true or not, and if your comment hadn't included those things, I wouldn't have responded. The second, deeper issue is that correctness—though good in principle—is neither sufficient nor necessary to make a good HN comment. For example, true statements can be used as weapons; or they can be off-topic; or they be ammunition for putdowns, and so on. In such cases, a statement being true can make the comment worse, not better. For example, consider telling a teenager about the acne on his or her face—pretty brutal, no? yet true. Or, to take an old example of pg's (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403), consider telling an old person that they're going to die soon. Also true, also not ok in many circumstances. Context and intention matter, and a good HN comment needs to be in the intended spirit of the site. That's why correctness isn't a sufficient condition for a good comment, and cannot justify a bad one. If you think about it, it isn't a necessary condition either—people are often simply mistaken, and that's part of good conversation (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044). What the "just the facts" or "but it's true" defense misses is that there are infinitely many facts and truths, and they don't select themselves. Humans do that, according to their motives, and a motive is not a fact. Here are some other links making similar points in case anyone wants further explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35145770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35145770 (March 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32909407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32909407 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697044 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628939 (Aug 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31996470 (July 2022) https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- dmitrijbelikov 1y agoI think that Andrej presents “Software 3.0” as a revolution, but in essence it is a natural evolution of abstractions. Abstractions don't eliminate the need to understand the underlying layers - they just hide them until something goes wrong. Software 3.0 is a step forward in convenience. But it is not a replacement for developers with a foundation, but a tool for acceleration, amplification and scaling. If you know what is under the hood — you are irreplaceable. If you do not know — you become dependent on a tool that you do not always understand.
- poorcedural 1y agoFoundational programmers form the base of where the seed can grow. In a way programmers found where our roots grow, they can not find your limits. Software 3.0 is a step into a different light, where software finds its own limits. If we know where they are rooted, we will merge their best attempts. Only because we appreciate their resultant behavior.
- dmitrijbelikov 1y agoThe software does nothing but what you tell it to do. And if you can't figure out the limits, then it's probably a personal problem that you haven't solved for yourself yet.
- ast0708 1y agoShould we not treat LLMs more as a UX feature to interact with a domain specific model (highly contextual), rather than expecting LLMs to provide the intelligence needed for software to act as partner to Humans.
- alightsoul 1y agowhy does vibe coding still involve any code at all? why can't an AI directly control the registers of a computer processor and graphics card, controlling a computer directly? why can't it draw on the screen directly, connected directly to the rows and columns of an LCD screen? what if an AI agent was implemented in hardware, with a processor for AI, a normal computer processor for logic, and a processor that correlates UI elements to touches on the screen? and a network card, some RAM for temporary stuff like UI elements and some persistent storage for vectors that represent UI elements and past converstations
- flumpcakes 1y agoI'm not sure this makes sense as a question. Registers are 'controlled' by running code for a given state. An AI can write code that changes registers, as all code does in operation. An AI can't directly 'control registers' in any other way, just as you or I can't.
- singularity2001 1y agowhat he means is why are the tokens not directly machine code tokens
- flumpcakes 1y agoWhat is meant by a 'machine code token'? Ultimately a processor needs assembly code as input to do anything. Registers are set by assembly. Data is read by assembly. Hardware is managed through assembly (for example by setting bits in memory). Either I have a complete misunderstanding on what this thread is talking about, or others are commenting with some fundamental assumptions that aren't correct.
- alightsoul 1y agoI would like to make an AI agent that directly interfaces with a processor by setting bits in a processor register, thus eliminating the need for even assembly code or any kind of code. The only software you would ever need would be the AI.
- belter 1y agoPainful to watch. The new tech generation deserves better than hyped presentations from tech evangelists. This reminds me of the Three Amigos and Grady Booch evangelizing the future of software while ignoring the terrible output from Rational Software and the Unified Process. At least we got acknowledgment that self-driving remains unsolved: https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?t=1622 https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?t=1622 And Waymo still requires extensive human intervention. Given Tesla's robotaxi timeline, this should crash their stock valuation...but likely won't. You can't discuss "vibe coding" without addressing security implications of the produced artifacts, or the fact that you're building on potentially stolen code, books, and copyrighted training data. And what exactly is Software 3.0? It was mentioned early then lost in discussions about making content "easier for agents."
- digianarchist 1y agoIn his defense he clearly articulated that meaningful change has not yet been achieved and could be a decade away. Even pointing to specific examples of LLMs failing to count letters and do basic arithmetic. What I find absent is where do we go from LLMs? More hardware, more training. "This isn't the scientific breakthrough you're looking for".
- nottorp 1y agoIn the era of AI and illiteracy...
- abdullin 1y agoTight feedback loops are the key in working productively with software. I see that in codebases up to 700k lines of code (legacy 30yo 4GL ERP systems). The best part is that AI-driven systems are fine with running even more tight loops than what a sane human would tolerate. Eg. running full linting, testing and E2E/simulation suite after any minor change. Or generating 4 versions of PR for the same task so that the human could just pick the best one.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- OvbiousError 1y agoI don't think the human is the problem here, but the time it takes to run the full testing suite.
- Byamarro 1y agoI work in web dev, so people sometimes hook code formatting as a git commit hook or sometimes even upon file save. The tests are problematic tho. If you work at huge project it's a no go idea at all. If you work at medium then the tests are long enough to block you, but short enough for you not to be able to focus on anything else in the meantime.
- diggan 1y agoIt is kind of a human problem too, although that the full testing suite takes X hours to run is also not fun, but it makes the human problem larger. Say you're Human A, working on a feature. Running the full testing suite takes 2 hours from start to finish. Every change you do to existing code needs to be confirmed to not break existing stuff with the full testing suite, so some changes it takes 2 hours before you have 100% understanding that it doesn't break other things. How quickly do you lose interest, and at what point do you give up to either improve the testing suite, or just skip that feature/implement it some other way? Now say you're Robot A working on the same task. The robot doesn't care if each change takes 2 hours to appear on their screen, the context is exactly the same, and they're still "a helpful assistant" 48 hours later when they still try to get the feature put together without breaking anything. If you're feeling brave, you start Robot B and C at the same time.
- benob 1y agoYou can generate 1.0 programs with 3.0 programs. But can you generate 2.0 programs the same way?
- olmo23 1y ago2.0 programs (model weights) are created by running 1.0 programs (training runs). I don't think it's currently possible to ask a model to generate the weights for a model.
- movedx01 1y agoBut you can generate synthetic data using a 3.0 program to train a smaller, faster, cheaper-to-run 2.0 program.
- amai 1y agoThe quite good blog post mentioned by Karpathy for working with LLMs when building software: - https://blog.nilenso.com/blog/2025/05/29/ai-assisted-coding/ https://blog.nilenso.com/blog/2025/05/29/ai-assisted-coding/ See also: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44242051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44242051
- ramraj07 1y ago[flagged]
- yusina 1y agoBrutal counter take: If AI tooling makes you so much better, then you started very low. In contrast, if you are already insanely productive in creative ways others can hardly achieve then chances are, AI tools don't make much of a difference.
- floppyd 1y agoAs someone who is starting very low — I very much agree. I'm basically a hobbyist who can navigate around Python code, and LLMs have been a godsend to me, they increased my hobby output tenfold. But as soon as I get into coding something I'm more familiar with, the LLMs usefulness plummets, because it's easier and faster to directly write code than to "translate" from English to code using an LLM (maybe only apart from using basically a smarter one-line tab completion)
- mkw5053 1y agoI like the idea of having a single source of truth RULES.md, however I'm wondering why you used symlinks as opposed to the ability to link/reference other files in cursor rules, CLAUDE.md, etc. I understand that functionality doesn't exist for all coding agents, but I think it gives you more flexibility when composing rules files (for example you can have the standard cursor rules headers and then point to @RULES.md lower in the file)
- blobbers 1y agoSoftware 3.0 is the code generated by the machine, not the prompts that generated it. The prompts don't even yield the same output; there is randomness. The new software world is the massive amount of code that will be burped out by these agents, and it should quickly dwarf the human output.
- pelagicAustral 1y agoI think that if you give the same task to three different developers you'll get three different implementations. It's not a random result if you do get the functionality that was expected, and at that, I do think the prompt plays an important role in offering a view of how the result was achieved.
- klabb3 1y ago> I think that if you give the same task to three different developers you'll get three different implementations. Yes, but if you want them to be compatible you need to define a protocol and conformance test suite. This is way more work than writing a single implementation. The code is the real spec. Every piece of unintentional non-determinism can be a hazard. That’s why you want the code to be the unit of maintenance, not a prompt.
- blobbers 1y agoInterestingly, I was generating some scraping code today. I prompted it fairly generically and it decided to spit out some Selenium code. I reported the stack trace failure, and it gave me a new script with playwright. That failed also and it gave me some suggestions to fix it. I asked it to update the whole script rather than snippets, and it responded with "Hey let's not use either of these and here we'll use the site's API." and proceeded to do that. Kind of crazy, it basically found 3 different hammers to hit the nail I wanted. The API unfortunately seems to be timeing out (I had to add the timeout=10 to the post u_u)
- black_13 1y ago[dead]
- politelemon 1y agoThe beginning was painful to watch as is the cheering in this comment section. The 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 simply aren't making sense. They imply a kind of a succession and replacement and demonstrate a lack of how programming works. It sounds as marketing oriented as "Web 3.0" that has been born inside an echo chamber. And yet halfway through, the need for determinism/validation is now being reinvented. The analogies make use of cherry picked properties, which could apply to anything.
- mazhar_TUF 1y ago[dead]
- monsieurbanana 1y ago> "Because they all have slight pros and cons, and you may want to program some functionality in 1.0 or 2.0, or 3.0, or you're going to train in LLM, or you're going to just run from LLM" He doesn't say they will fully replace each other (or had fully replaced each other, since his definition of 2.0 is quite old by now)
- whiplash451 1y agoI think Andrej is trying to elevate the conversation in an interesting way. That in and on itself makes it worth it. No one has a crystal clear view of what is happening, but at least he is bringing a novel and interesting perspective to the field.
- amelius 1y agoThe version numbers mean abrupt changes. Analogy: how we "moved" from using Google to ChatGPT is an abrupt change, and we still use Google.
- mentalgear 1y agoThe whole AI scene is starting to feel a lot like the cryptocurrency bubble before it burst. Don’t get me wrong, there’s real value in the field, but the hype, the influencers, and the flashy “salon tricks” are starting to drown out meaningful ML research (like Apple's critical research that actually improves AI robustness). It’s frustrating to see solid work being sidelined or even mocked in favor of vibe-coding. Meanwhile, I asked this morning Claude 4 to write a simple EXIF normalizer. After two rounds of prompting it to double-check its code, I still had to point out that it makes no sense to load the entire image for re-orientating if the EXIF orientation is fine in the first place. Vibe vs reality, and anyone actually working in the space daily can attest how brittle these systems are.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- paganel 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fergie 1y agoThere were some cool ideas- I particularly liked "psychology of AI" Overall though I really feel like he is selling the idea that we are going to have to pay large corporations to be able to write code. Which is... terrifying. Also, as a lazy developer who is always trying to make AI do my job for me, it still kind of sucks, and its not clear that it will make my life easier any time soon.
- guappa 1y agoI think it used to be like that before the GNU people made gcc, completely destroying the market of compilers. > Also, as a lazy developer who is always trying to make AI do my job for me, it still kind of sucks, and its not clear that it will make my life easier any time soon. Every time I have to write a simple self contained couple of functions I try… and it gets it completely wrong. It's easier to just write it myself rather than to iterate 50 times and hope it will work, considering iterations are also very slow.
- ykonstant 1y agoAt least proprietary compilers were software you owned and could be airgapped from any network. You didn't create software by tediously negotiating with compilers running on remote machines controlled by a tech corp that can undercut you on whatever you are trying to build (but of course they will not, it says so in the Agreement, and other tales of the fantastic).
- teekert 1y agoHe says that now we are in the mainframe phase. We will hit the personal computing phase hopefully soon. He says llama (and DeepSeek?) are like Linux in a way, OpenAI and Claude are like Windows and MacOS. So, No, he’s actually saying it may be everywhere for cheap soon. I find the talk to be refreshingly intellectually honest and unbiased. Like the opposite of a cringey LinkedIn post on AI.
- hollowturtle 1y agoBeing Linux is not a good thing imo, it took decades for tech like proton to run Windows games reliably, if not better as now, than Windows does. Software is still mostly develop for Windows and macOS. Not to mention the Linux Desktop that never took off, I mean one could mention Android but there is a large corporation behind it. Sure Linux is successfull in many ways, it's embedded everywhere but nowhere near being the OS of the everyday people, "traditional linux desktop" never took off
- romain_batlle 1y agoCan't believe they wanted to postpone this video by a few weeks
- dang 1y agoNo one wanted to! I think we might have bitten off more than we could chew in terms of video production. There is a lot of content to publish. Once it was clear how high the demand was for this talk, the team adapted quickly. That's how it goes sometimes! Future iterations will be different.
- ws169144 1y ago[dead]
- William_BB 1y ago[flagged]
- iLoveOncall 1y agoHe sounds like Terrence Howard with his nonsense.
- mentalgear 1y agoMeanwhile, I asked this morning Claude 4 to write a simple EXIF normalizer. After two rounds of prompting it to double-check its code, I still had to point out that it makes no sense to load the entire image for re-orientating if the EXIF orientation is fine in the first place. Vibe vs reality, and anyone actually working in the space daily can attest how brittle these systems are. Maybe this changes in SWE with more automated tests in verifiable simulators, but the real world is far to complex to simulate in its vastness.
- diggan 1y ago> Meanwhile What do you mean "meanwhile", that's exactly (among other things) the kind of stuff he's talking about? The various frictions and how you need to approach it > anyone actually working in the space Is this trying to say that Karpathy doesn't "actually work" with LLMs or in the ML space? I feel like your whole comment is just reacting to the title of the YouTube video, rather than actually thinking and reflecting on the content itself.
- demaga 1y agoI'm pretty sure "actually work" part refers to SWE space rather than LLM/ML space
- coreyh14444 1y agohttps://theeducationist.info/everything-amazing-nobody-happy/ https://theeducationist.info/everything-amazing-nobody-happy...
- belter 1y agoAI Snake Oil: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691249131/ai-snake-oil https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691249131/ai...
- ramon156 1y agoThe real question is how long it'll take until they're not brittle
- imiric 1y agoThe slide at 13m claims that LLMs flip the script on technology diffusion and give power to the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Large corporations, which have become governments in all but name, are the only ones with the capability to create ML models of any real value. They're the only ones with access to vast amounts of information and resources to train the models. They introduce biases into the models, whether deliberately or not, that reinforces their own agenda. This means that the models will either avoid or promote certain topics. It doesn't take a genius to imagine what will happen when the advertising industry inevitably extends its reach into AI companies, if it hasn't already. Even open weights models which technically users can self-host are opaque blobs of data that only large companies can create, and have the same biases. Even most truly open source models are useless since no individual has access to the same large datasets that corporations use for training. So, no, LLMs are the same as any other technology, and actually make governments and corporations even more powerful than anything that came before. The users benefit tangentially, if at all, but will mostly be exploited as usual. Though it's unsurprising that someone deeply embedded in the AI industry would claim otherwise.
- moffkalast 1y agoWell there are cases like OLMo where the process, dataset, and model are all open source. As expected though, it doesn't really compare well to the worst closed model since the dataset can't contain vast amounts of stolen copyrighted data that noticeably improves the model. Llama is not good because Meta knows what they're doing, it's good because it was pretrained on the entirety of Anna's Archive and every pirated ebook they could get their hands on. Same goes for Elevenlabs and pirated audiobooks. Lack of compute on the Ai2's side also means the context OLMo is trained for is miniscule, the other thing that you need to throw brazillions of dollars at to make model that's maybe useful in the end if you're very lucky. Training needs high GPU interconnect bandwidth, it can't be done in distributed horde in any meaningful way even if people wanted to. The only ones who have the power now are the Chinese, since they can easily ignore copyright for datasets, patents for compute, and have infinite state funding.
- khalic 1y agoHis dismissal of smaller and local models suggests he underestimates their improvement potential. Give phi4 a run and see what I mean.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoHe ain't dismissing them. Comparing local/"open" model to Linux (and closed services to Windows and MacOS) is high praise. It's also accurate.
- khalic 1y agoThis is a bad comparison
- sriram_malhar 1y agoOf all the things you could suggest, a lack of understanding is not one that can be pinned on Karpathy. He does know his technical stuff.
- khalic 1y agoWe all have blind spots
- diggan 1y agoSure, but maybe suggesting that the person who literally spent countless hours educating others on how to build small models locally from scratch, is lacking knowledge about local small models is going a bit beyond "people have blind spots".
- khalic 1y agoTheir potential, not how they work, it was very badly formulated, just corrected it
- diggan 1y ago> suggests a lack of understanding of these smaller models capabilities If anything, you're showing a lack of understanding of what he was talking about. The context is this specific time, where we're early in a ecosystem and things are expensive and likely centralized (ala mainframes) but if his analogy/prediction is correct, we'll have a "Linux" moment in the future where that equation changes (again) and local models are competitive. And while I'm a huge fan of local models run them for maybe 60-70% of what I do with LLMs, they're nowhere near proprietary ones today, sadly. I want them to, really badly, but it's important to be realistic here and realize the differences of what a normal consumer can run, and what the current mainframes can run.
- imiric 1y agoIt's fascinating to see his gears grinding at 22:55 when acknowledging that a human still has to review the thousand lines of LLM-generated code for bugs and security issues if they're "actually trying to get work done". Yet these are the tools that are supposed to make us hyperproductive? This is "Software 3.0"? Give me a break.
- rwmj 1y agoPlus coding is the fun bit, reviewing code is the hard and not fun bit, arguing with an overconfident machine sound like it'll be worse even than that. Thankfully I'm going to retire soon.
- imiric 1y agoAgreed. Hell, even reviewing code can be fun and engaging, especially if done in person. But it helps when the other party can actually think, instead of automatically responding with "You're right!", followed by changes that may or may not make things worse. It's as if software developers secretly hated their jobs and found most tasks a chore, so they hired someone else to poorly do the mechanical tasks for them, while ignoring the tasks that actually matter. That's not software engineering, programming, nor coding. It's some process of producing shitty software for which we need new terminology to describe. I envy you for retiring. Good luck!
- diggan 1y ago> Plus coding is the fun bit, reviewing code is the hard and not fun bit To you. For others, it looks differently. And for yet others, they don't care about the coding nor the reviewing, they want to solve a particular problem. I'd probably say I'm a programmer by accident. It's not that I love producing binaries by writing and compiling code, but I need to solve some particular problem that either is best solved by programming, or can only be solved by programming. "Programming by need" maybe is a fitting definition. Doesn't mean I don't care about code quality, or good abstractions and having a reasonable design/architecture. But I'm focused on the end goal, having a particular problem solved, and coding is just the way there (sometimes).
- bgwalter 1y agoI'd like to hear from Linux kernel developers. There is no significant software that has been written (plagiarized) by "AI". Why not ask the actual experts who deliver instead of talk? This whole thing is a religion.
- diggan 1y agoWhat counts as "significant software"? Only kernels I guess?
- xvilka 1y agoOffice software, CAD systems, Web Browsers, the list is long.
- diggan 1y agoMicrosoft (famously developing somewhat popular office-like software) seems to be going in the direction of almost forcing developers to use LLMs to assist with coding, at least going by what people are willing to admit publicly and seeing some GitHub activity. Google (made a small browser or something) also develops their own models, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine there is at least one developer on the Chrome/Chromium team that is trying to dogfood that stuff. As for Autodesk, I have no idea what they're up to, but corporate IT seems hellbent on killing themselves, not sure Autodesk would do anything differently so they're probably also trying to jam LLMs down their employees throats.
- bgwalter 1y agoMicrosoft is also selling "AI", so they want headlines like "30% of our code is written by AI". So they force open source developers to babysit the tools and suffer. It's also an advertisement for potential "AI" military applications that they undoubtedly propose after the HoloLens failure: https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/13/23402195/microsoft-us-army-hololens-ar-goggles-internal-reports-failings-nausea-headaches https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/13/23402195/microsoft-us-ar... The HoloLens failure is a great example of overhyped technology, just like the bunker busters that are now in the headlines for overpromising.
- darqis 1y agowhen I started coding at the age of 11 in machine code and assembly on the C64, the dream was to create software that creates software. Nowadays it's almost reality, almost because the devil is always in the details. When you're used to write code, writing code is relatively fast. You need this knowledge to debug issues with generated code. However you're now telling AI to fix the bugs in the generated code. I see it kind of like machine code becomes overlaid with asm which becomes overlaid with C or whatever higher level language, which then uses dogma/methodology like MVC and such and on top of that there's now the AI input and generation layer. But it's not widely available. Affording more than 1 computer is a luxury. Many households are even struggling to get by. When you see those what 5 7 Mac Minis, which normal average Joe can afford that or does even have to knowledge to construct an LLM at home? I don't. This is a toy for rich people. Just like with public clouds like AWS, GCP I left out, because the cost is too high and running my own is also too expensive and there are cheaper alternatives that not only cost less but also have way less overhead. What would be interesting to see is what those kids produced with their vibe coding.
- diggan 1y ago> those kids produced with their vibe coding No one, including Karpathy in this video, is advocating for "vibe coding". If nothing more, LLMs paired with configurable tool-usage, is basically a highly advanced and contextual search engine you can ask questions. Are you not using a search engine today? Even without LLMs being able to produce code or act as agents they'd be useful, because of that. But it sucks we cannot run competitive models locally, I agree, it is somewhat of a "rich people" tool today. Going by the talk and theme, I'd agree it's a phase, like computing itself had phases. But you're gonna have to actually watch and listen to the talk itself, right now you're basically agreeing with the video yet wrote your comment like you disagree.
- dist-epoch 1y ago> This is a toy for rich people GitHub copilot has a free tier. Google gives you thousands of free LLM API calls per day. There are other free providers too.
- 1y ago
- yahoozoo 1y agoI was trying to do some reverse engineering with Claude using an MCP server I wrote for a game trainer program that supports Python scripts. The context window gets filled up _so_ fast. I think my server is returning too many addresses (hex) when Claude searches for values in memory, but it’s annoying. These things are so flaky.
- diggan 1y agoYeah, usually I'd steer my agents to never use the output directly from any command, and instead redirect it to a logfile, then force it to search/grep stuff directly from the log-file instead of just getting all the outputs at all times. Seems to work OK.
- lngnmn2 1y ago[dead]
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- sahil_sharma0 1y ago[dead]
- huksley 1y agoVibe coding is making a LEGO furniture, getting it run on the cloud is assembling the IKEA table for a busy restaurant
- beacon294 1y agoWhat is this "clerk" library he used at this timestamp to tell him what to do? https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?si=XaC-oOMUxXp0DRU0&t=1991 https://youtu.be/LCEmiRjPEtQ?si=XaC-oOMUxXp0DRU0&t=1991 Gemini found it via screenshot or context: https://clerk.com/ https://clerk.com/ This is what he used for login on MenuGen: https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/vibe-coding-menugen/ https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/vibe-coding-menugen/
- xnx 1y agoThat blog post is a great illustration that most of the complexity/difficulty of a web app is in the hosting and not in the useful code.
- fullstackchris 1y agoclerk is an auth library - and finally one that doesnt require dozens of lines to do things like, i dont know, check if the user is logged in and wild... you used gemini to process a screenshot to find the website for a 5 letter word library?
- alightsoul 1y agoNot gemini but google lens. Maybe gemini already has some agentic capabilities
- matiasmolinas 1y agohttps://github.com/EvolvingAgentsLabs/llmunix https://github.com/EvolvingAgentsLabs/llmunix An experiment to explore Kaparthy ideas
- bawana 1y agohow do i install this thing?
- maleldil 1y agoAs far as I understand, you don't. You open Claude Code inside the repo and prompt `boot llmunix` inside Claude Code. The CLAUDE.md file tells Claude how to respond to that.
- bawana 1y agoThank you for the hint. I guess I need a claude API token. From the images it seems he is opening it from his default directory. I sees the 'base env' so it is unclear if any other packages were installed beyond the default linux. I see he simply typed 'boot llmunix' so he must have symlinked 'boot' to his PATH.
- Aeroi 1y agothe fanboying for this dudes opinion is insane.
- mrmansano 1y agoIt's pastor preaching for the already converted, not new in the area. The only thing new is that they are selling the kool-aid this time.
- Aeroi 1y agoIt's been a multi-day like conversation where multiple people are trying to obtain the transcripts, publish the text as gospel, and now the video. Like, yes thank you but, holy shit.
- mupuff1234 1y agoYeah, not sure I ever saw anything similar on HN before, feels very odd. I mean the talk is fine and all but that's about it?
- diggan 1y ago> Yeah, not sure I ever saw anything similar on HN before, feels very odd. What exactly have you been seeing here on HN? I've been reading through most of the comments in this submission, since it was submitted yesterday, and none of it seems to be "fanboying" (maybe I misunderstand the term?) but discussions about where LLMs fit in the software development workflow. Some people find some parts interesting, others obvious, others think he's selling something, others find the analogies lacking, but I've seen no "fanboy" comments like what parent seemed to exclusively see here.
- dang 1y agoMaybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. (Thoughtful criticism that we can learn from is welcome, of course. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
- eitally 1y agoIt's going to be very interesting to see how things evolve in enterprise IT, especially but not exclusively in regulated industries. As more SaaS services are at least partly vibe coded, how are CIOs going to understand and mitigate risk? As more internal developers are using LLM-powered coding interfaces and become less clear on exactly how their resulting code works, how will that codebase be maintained and incrementally updated with new features, especially in solo dev teams (which is common)? I easily see a huge future for agentic assistance in the enterprise, but I struggle mightily to see how many IT leaders would accept the output code of something like a menugen app as production-viable. Additionally, if you're licensing code from external vendors who've built their own products at least partly through LLM-driven superpowers, how do you have faith that they know how things work and won't inadvertently break something they don't know how to fix? This goes for niche tools (like Clerk, or Polar.sh or similar) as much as for big heavy things (like a CRM or ERP). I was on the CEO track about ten years ago and left it for a new career in big tech, and I don't envy the folks currently trying to figure out the future of safe, secure IT in the enterprise.
- gosub100 1y ago> how many IT leaders would accept the output code of something like a menugen app as production-viable. probably all of the ones at microsoft
- dapperdrake 1y agoJust like when all regulated industries started only using decision trees and ordinary least-squares regression instead of any other models.
- r2b2 1y agoI've found that as LLMs improve, some of their bugs become increasingly slippery - I think of it as the uncanny valley of code. Put another way, when I cause bugs, they are often glaring (more typos, fewer logic mistakes). Plus, as the author it's often straightforward to debug since you already have a deep sense for how the code works - you lived through it. So far, using LLMs has downgraded my productivity. The bugs LLMs introduce are often subtle logical errors, yet "working" code. These errors are especially hard to debug when you didn't write the code yourself — now you have to learn the code as if you wrote it anyway. I also find it more stressful deploying LLM code. I know in my bones how carefully I write code, due to a decade of roughly "one non critical bug per 10k lines" that keeps me asleep at night. The quality of LLM code can be quite chaotic. That said, I'm not holding my breath. I expect this to all flip someday, with an LLM becoming a better and more stable coder than I am, so I guess I will keep working with them to make sure I'm proficient when that day comes.
- poorcedural 1y agoSoftware 3.0 is where Engineers only create the kernel or seed of an idea. Then all users are developers creating their own branch using the feedback loop of their own behavior.
- greybox 1y agoHe's talking about "LLM Utility companies going down and the world becoming dumber" as a sign of humanity's progress. This if anything should be a huge red flag
- bryanh 1y agoReplace with "Water Utility going down and the world becoming less sanitary", etc. Still a red flag?
- greybox 1y agoYou're making leap of logic. Before water sanitization technology we had no way of sanitizing water on a large scale. Before LLMs, we could still write software. Arguably we were collectively better at it.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoLLMs are general-purpose tools used for great many tasks, most of them not related to writing code.
- iLoveOncall 1y agoHe lives in a GenAI bubble where everyone is self-congratulating about the usage of LLMs. The reality is that there's not a single critical component anywhere that is built on LLMs. There's absolutely no reliance on models, and ChatGPT being down has absolutely no impact on anything beside teenagers not being able to cheat on their homeworks and LLM wrappers not being able to wrap.
- ukprogrammer 1y agoEven an LLM could tell you that that's an unknowable thing, perhaps you should rely on them more.
- iLoveOncall 1y ago
- tinyhouse 1y agoAfter Cursor is sold for $3B, they should transfer Karpathy 20%. (it also went viral before thanks to him tweeting about it) Great talk like always. I actually disagree on a few things with him. When he said "why would you go to ChatGPT and copy / paste, it makes much more sense to use a GUI that is integrated to your code such as Cursor". Cursor and the like take a lot of the control from the user. If you optimize for speed then use Cursor. But if you optimize for balance of speed, control, and correctness, then using Cursor might not be the best solution, esp if you're not an expert of how to use it. It seems that Karpathy is mainly writing small apps these days, he's not working on large production systems where you cannot vibe code your way through (not yet at least)
- researchai 1y agoI can't believe I googled most of the dishes on the menu every time I went to the Thai restaurant. I've just realised how painful that was when I saw MenuGen!
- ukprogrammer 1y agoWhy do non-users of LLM's like to despise/belittle them so much? Just don't use them, and, outcompete those who do. Or, use them and outcompete those who don't. Belittling/lamenting on any thread about them is not helpful and akin to spam.
- djeastm 1y agoSome people are annoyed at the hype, some are making good faith arguments about the pros/cons, and some people are just cranky. AI is a popular subject and we've all got our hot takes.
- varelse 1y ago[dead]
- blixt 1y agoIf we extrapolate these points about building tools for AI and letting the AI turn prompts into code I can’t help but reach the conclusion that future programming languages and their runtimes will be heavily influenced by the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs. What would the code of an application look like if it was optimized to be efficiently used by LLMs and not humans? * While LLMs do heavily tend towards expecting the same inputs/outputs as humans because of the training data I don’t think this would inhibit co-evolution of novel representations of software.
- internet_rand0 1y ago[dead]
- maitredusoi 1y ago[dead]
- thierrydamiba 1y agoIs a world driven by the strengths and weaknesses of programming languages better than the one driven by the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs?
- ivape 1y agoBetter to think of it as a world driven by the strengths and weaknesses of people. Is the world better if more people can express themselves via software? Yes. I don’t believe in coincidences. I don’t think the universe provided AI by accident. I believe it showed up just at the moment where the universe wants to make it clear - your little society of work and status and money can go straight to living hell. And that’s where it’s going, the developer was never supposed to be a rockstar, they were always meant to be creatives who do it because they like it. Fuck this job bullshit, those days are over. You will program the same way you play video games, it’s never to be work again (it’s simply too creative). Will the universe make it so a bunch of 12 year olds dictate software in natural language in a Roblox like environment that rivals the horeshit society sold for billions just a decade ago? Yes, and thank god. It’s been a wild ride, thank you god for ending it (like he did with nuclear bombs after ww2, our little universe of war shrunk due to that). Anyways, always pay attention to the little details, it’s never a coincidence. The universe doesn’t just sit there and watch our fiasco believe it or not, it gets involved.
- tudorizer 1y ago95% terrible expression of the landscape, 5% neatly dumbed down analogies. English is a terrible language for deterministic outcomes in complex/complicated systems. Vibe coders won't understand this until they are 2 years into building the thing. LLMs have their merits and he sometimes aludes to them, although it almost feels accidental. Also, you don't spend years studying computer science to learn the language/syntax, but rather the concepts and systems, which don't magically disappear with vibe coding. This whole direction is a cheeky Trojan horse. A dramatic problem, hidden in a flashy solution, to which a fix will be upsold 3 years from now. I'm excited to come back to this comment in 3 years.
- diggan 1y ago> English is a terrible language for deterministic outcomes in complex/complicated systems I think that you seem to be under the impression that Karpathy somehow alluded to or hinted at that in his talk, which indicates you haven't actually watched the talk, which makes your first point kind of weird. I feel like one of the stronger points he made, was that you cannot treat the LLMs as something they're explicitly not, so why would anyone expect deterministic outcomes from them? He's making the case for coding with LLMs, not letting the LLMs go by themselves writing code ("vibe coding"), and understanding how they work before attempting to do so.
- tudorizer 1y agoI watched the entire talk, quite carefully. He explicitly states how excited he was about his tweet mentioning English. The disclaimer you mention was indeed mentioned, although it's "in one ear, out the other" with most of his audience. If I give you a glazed donut with a brief asterisk about how sugar can cause diabetes will it stop you from eating the donut? You also expect deterministic outcomes when making analogies with power plants and fabs.
- fifilura 1y agoEither way, I am not sure it is a requirement on HN to read/view the source. Particularly not a 40min video. Maybe it is tongue-in-cheek, maybe I am serious. I am not sure myself. But sometimes the interesting discussions comes from what is on top of the posters mind when viewing the title. Is that bad?
- kat529770 1y ago[dead]
- kypro 1y agoI know we've had thought leaders in tech before, but am I the only one who is getting a bit fed up by practically anything a handful of people in the AI space say being circulated everywhere in tech spaces at the moment?
- danny_codes 1y agoNo it’s incredibly annoying I agree. The hype hysteria is ridiculous.
- dang 1y agoIf there are lesser-known voices who are as interesting as karpathy or simonw (to mention one other example), I'd love to know who they are so we can get them into circulation on HN.
- jes5199 1y agookay I’m practicing my new spiel: this focus on coding is the wrong level of abstraction coding is no longer the problem. the problem is getting the right context to the coding agent. this is much, much harder “vibe coding” is the new “horseless carriage” the job of the human engineer is “context wrangling”
- diggan 1y ago> coding is no longer the problem. "Coding" - The art of literally using your fingers to type weird characters into a computer, was never a problem developers had. The problem has always been understanding and communication, and neither of those have been solved at this moment. If anything, they have gotten even more important, as usually humans can infer things or pick up stuff by experience, but LLMs cannot, and you have to be very precise and exact about what you're telling them. And so the problem remains the same. "How do I communicate what I want to this person, while keeping the context as small as possible as to not overflow, yet extensive enough to cover everything?" except you're sending it to endpoint A instead of endpoint B.
- ofjcihen 1y agoI’d take it a step further honestly. You need to be precise and exact but you also have to have enough domain knowledge to know when the LLM is making a huge mistake.
- diggan 1y ago> you also have to have enough domain knowledge I'm a bit 50/50 on this. Generally I agree, how are you supposed to review it otherwise? Blindly accepting whatever the LLM tells you or gives you is bound to create trouble in the future, you still need to understand and think about what the thing you're building is, and how to design/architect it. I love making games, but I'm also terrible at math. Sometimes, I end up out of my depth, and sometimes it could take me maybe a couple of days to solve something that probably would be trivial for a lot of people. I try my best to understand the fundamentals and the theory behind it, but also not get lost in rabbit holes, but it's still hard, for whatever reason. So I end up using LLMs sometimes to write small utility functions used in my games for specific things. It takes a couple of minutes. I know exactly what I want to pass into it, and what I want to get back, but I don't necessarily understand 100% of the math behind it. And I think I'm mostly OK with this, as long as I can verify that the expected inputs get the expected outputs, which I usually do with unit or E2E tests. Would I blindly accept information about nuclear reactors, another topic I don't understand much about? No, I'd still take everything a LLM outputs with a "grain of probability" because that's how they work. Would I blindly accept it if I can guarantee that for my particular use case, it gives me what I expect from it? Begrudgingly, yeah, because I just wanna create games and I'm terrible at math.
- ldenoue 1y agoFull playable transcript https://www.appblit.com/scribe?v=LCEmiRjPEtQ https://www.appblit.com/scribe?v=LCEmiRjPEtQ
- swyx 1y agoslides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sZqMAoIJDxz79cbC5ap5v9jknYH4Aa9cFFaWL8Rids4/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sZqMAoIJDxz79cbC5ap5...
- alightsoul 1y agoIt's interesting to see people here and on Blind are more wary? of AI than people in say, Reddit or Youtube comments
- sponnath 1y agoReddit and YouTube are such huge social media platforms that it really depends on which bubble (read: subreddits/yt channels) you're looking at. There's the "AGI is here" people over at r/singularity and then the "AI is useless" people at r/programming. I'm simplifying arguments from both sides here but you get my point.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- alightsoul 1y agoEven looking at r/programming I felt they were less wary of AI, or even comparing the comments here vs those on YouTube for this video
- diggan 1y agoSome places are more "echo-chambery" than others, reddit is probably an extreme example in echo-chambers. At least the bigger subreddits, smaller ones can be a bit more diverse and enjoyable.
- lubujackson 1y agoGenerally, people behind big revolutionary tech are the worst suited for understanding how it will do "in the wild". Forest for the trees and all that. Some good nuggets in this talk, specifically his concept that Software 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 will all persist and all have unique use cases. I definitely agree with that. I disagree with his belief that "anyone can vibe code" mindset - this works to a certain level of fidelity ("make an asteroids clone") but what he overlooks is his ability, honed over many years, to precisely document requirements that will translate directly to code that works in an expected way. If you can't write up a Jira epic that covers all bases of a project, you probably can't vibe code something beyond a toy project (or an obvious clone). LLM code falls apart under its own weight without a solid structure, and I don't think that will ever fundamentally change. Where we are going next, and a lot of effort is being put behind, is figuring out exactly how to "lengthen the leash" of AI through smart framing, careful context manipulation and structured requests. We obviously can have anyone vibe code a lot further if we abstract different elements into known areas and simply allow LLMs to stitch things together. This would allow much larger projects with a much higher success rate. In other words, I expect an AI Zapier/Yahoo Pipes evolution. Lastly, I think his concept of only having AI pushing "under 1000 line PRs" that he carefully reviews is more short-sighted. We are very, very early in learning how to control these big stupid brains. Incrementally, we will define sub-tasks that the AI can take over completely without anyone ever having to look at the code, because the output will always be within an accepted and tested range. The revolution will be at the middleware level.
- AlexCoventry 1y agoI've seen evidence of "anyone can vibe code", but at this stage the result tends to be a 5,000-line application intricately entangled with 500,000 lines of irrelevant slop. Still, the wonder is that the bear can dance at all. That's a new thing under the sun.
- nsagent 1y agoHaving worked with game designers writing code for their missions/levels in a scripting language, I'd say this has been the case for quite a long while. They start with the code from another level, then modify it until it seems to do what they want. During the alpha testing phase, we'd have a programmer read through the code and remove all the useless cruft and fix any associated bugs. In some sense that's what vibe coding with an AI is like if you don't know how to code. You have the AI make some initial set of code that you can't evaluate for correctness, then slowly modify it until it seems to behave generally like you want. You might even learn to recognize a few things in the code over time, at which point you can directly change some variables or structures in the code directly.
- raffael_de 1y agoI'm a little surprised at how negative he is towards textual interfaces and text for representing information.
- manyaoman 1y agoI didn't get the impression that he's against text per se, just that LLMs should use a format that's most concise for humans in the given scenario. Example from the video: showing the (textual) diff between old and new versions of text/code, rather than just the new version. Or converting a text-only restaurant menu to photos+text.
- j45 1y agoIt's interesting how researchers are ahead on some insights and introducing them, and it feels like some are new to them but it might already exist and they're helping present them to the world. A positive video all around, have got to learn a lot from Andrej's Youtube account. LLMs are really strange, I don't know if I've seen a technology where the technology class that applies it (or can verify applicability) has been so separate or unengaged compared to the non-technical people looking to solve problems.
- whilenot-dev 1y agoI watched Karpathy's Intro to Large Language Models[0] not so long ago and must say that I'm a bit confused by this presentation, and it's a bit unclear to me what it adds. 1,5 years ago he saw all the tool uses in agent systems as the future of LLMs, which seemed reasonable to me. There was (and maybe still is) potential for a lot of business cases to be explored, but every system is defined by its boundaries nonetheless. We still don't know all the challenges we face at that boundaries, whether these could be modelled into a virtual space, handled by software, and therefor also potentially AI and businesses. Now it all just seems to be analogies and what role LLMs could play in our modern landscape. We should treat LLMs as encapsulated systems of their own ...but sometimes an LLM becomes the operating system, sometimes it's the CPU, sometimes it's the mainframe from the 60s with time-sharing, a big fab complex, or even outright electricity itself? He's showing an iOS app, which seems to be, sorry for the dismissive tone, an example for a better looking counter. This demo app was in a presentable state for a demo after a day, and it took him a week to implement Googles OAuth2 stuff. Is that somehow exciting? What was that? The only way I could interpret this is that it just shows a big divide we're currently in. LLMs are a final API product for some, but an unoptimized generative software-model with sophisticated-but-opaque algorithms for others. Both are utterly in need for real world use cases - the product side for the fresh training data, and the business side for insights, integrations and shareholder value. Am I all of a sudden the one lacking imagination? Is he just slurping the CEO cool aid and still has his investments in OpenAI? Can we at least agree that we're still dealing with software here? [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkBMFhNj_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkBMFhNj_g
- bwfan123 1y ago> Am I all of a sudden the one lacking imagination? No, The reality of what these tools can do is sinking in.. The rubber is meeting the road and I can hear some screaching. The boosters are in 5 stages of grief coming to terms with what was once AGI and is now a mere co-pilot, while the haters are coming to terms with the fact that LLMs can actually be useful in a variety of usecases.
- anothermathbozo 1y ago
- wiremine 1y agoI spent a lot of time thinking about this recently. Ultimately, English is not a clean, deterministic abstraction layer. This isn't to say that LLMs aren't useful, and can create some great efficiencies.
- npollock 1y agono, but a subset of English could be
- freehorse 1y agoThought we already had that?
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoLet me introduce to you.. python ;)
- axxto 1y agoYou just invented programming languages, halfway
- smnplk 1y agoYeah, let's bring back COBOL
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mkw5053 1y agoThis DevOps friction is exactly why I'm building an open-source "Firebase for LLMs." The moment you want to add AI to an app, you're forced to build a backend just to securely proxy API calls—you can't expose LLM API keys client-side. So developers who could previously build entire apps backend-free suddenly need servers, key management, rate limiting, logging, deployment... all just to make a single OpenAI call. Anyone else hit this wall? The gap between "AI-first" and "backend-free" development feels very solvable.
- smpretzer 1y agoI think this lines up with Apple’s thesis of on-device models being a useful feature for developers who don’t want to deal with calling out the OpenAI https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundationmodels https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundationmodels
- sockboy 1y agoYeah, hit this exact wall building a small AI tool. Ended up spinning up a whole backend just to keep the keys safe. Feels like there should be a simpler way, but haven’t seen anything that’s truly plug-and-play yet. Curious to see what you’re working on.
- dieortin 1y agoIt’s very obvious this account was just created to promote your product…
- mkw5053 1y agoI don't even have a product although I'd love people to work on something open source together. Also, I'm not nearly cool enough to earn a green username.
- swyx 1y ago> This DevOps friction is exactly why I'm building an open-source "Firebase for LLMs." i dont understand your earlier statement then
- magicloop 1y agoI think this is a brilliant talk and truly captures the "zeitgeist" of our times. He sees the emergent patterns arising as software creation is changing. I am writing a hobby app at the moment and I am thinking about its architecture in a new way now. I am making all my model structures comprehensible so that LLMs can see the inside semantics of my app. I merely provide a human friendly GUI over the top to avoid the linear wall-of-text problem you get when you want to do something complex via a chat interface. We need to meet LLMs in the middle ground to leverage the best of our contributions - traditional code, partially autonomous AI, and crafted UI/UX. Part of, but not all of, programming is "prompting well". It goes along with understanding the imperative aspects, developing a nose for code smells, and the judgement for good UI/UX. I find our current times both scary and exciting.
- poorcedural 1y ago[dead]
- johnwheeler 1y agoI am actually working on building a semantic TypeScript server right now. It's going really good, check it out. https://github.com/screencam/typescript-mcp-server https://github.com/screencam/typescript-mcp-server
- polishdude20 1y agoWith your tool can I hook it up to Cursor and just have it use it?
- johnwheeler 1y agoI’ve only used it with Claude code I did a post in Show HN where you can see the installation instructions. I would put them here, but ware on the iPad. It’s an MCP server so it should work. I would’ve thought cursor and other IDs would have some type of sytactic analysis built-in
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sockboy 1y agoDefinitely hit this wall too. The backend just for API proxy feels like a detour when all you want is to ship a quick prototype. Would love to see more tools that make this seamless, especially for solo builders.
- Waterluvian 1y agoThis got me thinking about something… Isn’t an LLM basically a program that is impossible to virus scan and therefore can never be safely given access to any capable APIs? For example: I’m a nice guy and spend billions on training LLMs. They’re amazing and free and I hand out the actual models for you all to use however you want. But I’ve trained it very heavily on a specific phrase or UUID or some other activation key being a signal to <do bad things, especially if it has console and maybe internet access>. And one day I can just leak that key into the world. Maybe it’s in spam, or on social media, etc. How does the community detect that this exists in the model? Ie. How does the community virus scan the LLM for this behaviour?
- robertk 1y agoYou may be interested in: https://www.anthropic.com/research/sleeper-agents-training-deceptive-llms-that-persist-through-safety-training https://www.anthropic.com/research/sleeper-agents-training-d... https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13660 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13660
- Waterluvian 1y agoYes these look perfect! Thank you.
- autobodie 1y agoProfit over security, outsource liability
- orbital-decay 1y agoThis is what mechanistic interpretability studies are trying to achieve, and it's not yet realistically possible for a general case.
- avarun 1y agoSimilarly to how you can never guarantee that one of your trusted employees won’t be made a foreign asset.
- 1y ago
- fHr 1y agobig companies still already lay off
- old_man_cato 1y agoThe image of a bunch of children in a room gleefully playing with their computers is horror movie type stuff, but because it's in a white room with plants and not their parent's basement with the lights off, it's somehow a wonderful future. Karpathy and his peer group are some of the most elitist and anti social people who have ever lived. I wonder how history will remember them.
- 8note 1y agodid you not have the computer room open to flash games and the like over lunch time? competitive 4 player bmtron was a blast way back whenhttps://www.games1729.com/archive/ https://www.games1729.com/archive/
- old_man_cato 1y agoI did. I also had basically unlimited access to pornography and I saw more than one video of someone having their head severed off. But yeah, I played a lot of computer games. That was fun.
- whatarethembits 1y agoIts early days. Agree with your point that the "vision" of the future laid out by tech people doesn't have much of a chance of becoming (accepted) reality, because its necessarily a reflection of their own inner world, largely devoid of importance and interactions with other people. Prime example, see metaverse. Most of us don't want to replace the real world with a (crappy) digital one; the sooner we build things that respects that fundamental value, the sooner we can build things that actually improves our lives.
- mirsadm 1y agoI thought that video was generated. Everything about it seemed off
- johnwheeler 1y agohttps://github.com/screencam/typescript-mcp-server https://github.com/screencam/typescript-mcp-server I've been working on this project. I built this in about two days, using it to build itself at the tail end of the effort. It's not perfect, but I see the promise in it. It stops the thrashing the LLMs can do when they're looking for types or trying to resolve anything like that.
- diggan 1y ago> Traditional: Read 5000 lines → Find method → Replace → Write 5000 lines What of today's agents work like this? None of the ones I've tried would do something like that, but instead would grep/search the file, then do a smaller edit (different tools do those in different ways). Overall, it does feel like a strawman argument against "Traditional" when almost none of the tooling actually works like that.
- johnwheeler 1y agoApologies - I had the LLM generate the readme and it looks like it got a bit overzealous. I'll get some actual benchmarks and cost usage analysis going. I've tamed the README somewhat. Please check it out!
- OJFord 1y agoI'm not sure about the 1.0/2.0/3.0 classification, but it did lead me to think about LLMs as a programming paradigm: we've had imperative & declarative, procedural & functional languages, maybe we'll come to view deterministic vs. probabilistic (LLMs) similarly. def __main__: You are a calculator. Given an input expression, you compute the result and print it to stdout, exiting 0. Should you be unable to do this, you print an explanation to stderr and exit 1. (and then, perhaps, a bunch of 'DO NOT express amusement when the result is 5318008', etc.)
- ai-christianson 1y agoWhy does this remind me of COBOL.
- wiz21c 1y ago'cos COBOL was designed to be human readable (writable ?).
- crsn 1y agoThis (sort of) is already a paradigm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_programming
- stabbles 1y agoThat's entirely orthogonal. In probabilistic programming you (deterministically) define variables and formulas. It's just that the variables aren't instances of floats, but represent stochastic variables over floats. This is similar to libraries for linear algebra where writing A * B * C does not immediately evaluate, but rather builds an expression tree that represent the computation; you need to do say `eval(A * B * C)` to obtain the actual value, and it gives the library room to compute it in the most efficient way. It's more related to symbolic programming and lazy evaluation than (non-)determinism.
- dheera 1y agodef __main__: You run main(). If there are issues, you edit __file__ to try to fix the errors and re-run it. You are determined, persistent, and never give up.
- goosebump 1y agohttps://software3.com/index.htm https://software3.com/index.htm Amazing!!!
- ankurdhama 1y agoWhere are the debugging tools for the so called "Software 3.0" ?
- autobodie 1y agoIf the prompt is good, the LLM will tell you when it's wrong, but you can use production testing if necessary like Tesla.
- taegee 1y agoI can't stop thinking about these agents as Agent Smith, The Architect, etc.
- himanshuy 1y agowhy there are so many bots posting comments?
- kat529770 1y ago[dead]
- kdrvr 1y agoI honestly like his perspective around vibe coding. I feel like his original tweet has been taken misunderstood by the mainstream. (Proof-of-concepts churned out over the weekend will usually die or be mostly rewritten, anyways.) For programmers dipping their feet into new areas, I believe it can be useful. Though, I do not see it being useful as a "gateway drug" (as he says) for kids learning to code. I have seen that children can understand langs and base programming concepts, given the right resources and encouragement. If kids in the 80s/early 90s learned BASIC and grew up to become software engineers; then what we have now (Scratch, Python, even Javascript + something like P5) are perfectly adequate to that task. Vibe coding really just teaches kids how to prompt LLMs properly.
- meerab 1y agoSee complete transcript of Andrej Karpathy's video https://videotobe.com/play/youtube/LCEmiRjPEtQ https://videotobe.com/play/youtube/LCEmiRjPEtQ
- 0xjunhao 1y agoBefore I became a software engineer, I was a computational physicist. My days back then were pretty much tweaking some parameters, running a job, then reading papers and checking back after a few minutes or hours. Increasingly, I’m starting to think my days as a software engineer will be pretty similar.