3 ms·

The 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 success

The 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 ago
  I 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 ago
The 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 ago
The 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.
- rxtexit 1y ago
  I think part of the problem is that people have the wrong mental models currently. I am a non-software engineer and I fully expect someday to be a professional "vibe coder". It will be within a domain though and not a generalist like a real software engineer. I think "vibe coding" in this context will have a type of relationship to software engineering the way excel has a relationship to the professional mathematician. The knocks on "vibe coding" by software engineers are like a mathematician shitting on Excel for not being able to do symbolic manipulation. It is not wrong but missing the forest for the trees.
diggan 1y ago
> The beginning was painful to watch as is the cheering in this comment section. Yours is the second comment claiming there is "cheering" and "fanboying" in this comment section. What comments are you talking about? I've read through this submission multiple times since yesterday, yet I've seen none of that. What specific comments are the "cheering" ones?

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 ago
I 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 ago

The 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 ago

The 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.

rxtexit 1y ago
I think part of the problem is that people have the wrong mental models currently. I am a non-software engineer and I fully expect someday to be a professional "vibe coder". It will be within a domain though and not a generalist like a real software engineer. I think "vibe coding" in this context will have a type of relationship to software engineering the way excel has a relationship to the professional mathematician. The knocks on "vibe coding" by software engineers are like a mathematician shitting on Excel for not being able to do symbolic manipulation. It is not wrong but missing the forest for the trees.

diggan 1y ago

> The beginning was painful to watch as is the cheering in this comment section. Yours is the second comment claiming there is "cheering" and "fanboying" in this comment section. What comments are you talking about? I've read through this submission multiple times since yesterday, yet I've seen none of that. What specific comments are the "cheering" ones?