5 ms·
[Stub for offtopicness, including but not limited to comments replying to original title rather than article's content]
by tomhow 1y ago
[Stub for offtopicness, including but not limited to comments replying to original title rather than article's content]
- michelsedgh 1y ago[flagged]
- incompatible 1y agoThe LLMs may be useful some day, if somebody can figure out how to stop them randomly generating complete garbage.
- petesergeant 1y agoIf you can't make LLMs do useful work for you today, that's on you.
- michelsedgh 1y agoI'm not trying to advertise anything here, but i'm telling you i can create apps that feel apple level quality and its not garbage. I built this in 2 weeks I had never known what swift is or anything. I wasn't a coder or app maker, but now I can build something like this in 2 weeks. Let me know if its garbage. I'll love criticism and I'll look for something else if its actually garbage.
- incompatible 1y agoSorry, I don't have an iphone or macos.
- incompatible 1y agoI'd be wary of LLM-generated code, even if it seems to work in test cases. Are you sure it doesn't go wrong in edge cases, or have security problems? If you don't even know the language, you can't do any meaningful code review.
- rvnx 1y agoSame with car drivers, but what about 30 years from now ?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- incompatible 1y agoIf it's reliable in 30 years, I could take another look, in the unlikely event that I'm still alive.
- michelsedgh 1y agoHow old are u?
- incompatible 1y agoAbout 60.
- ranger_danger 1y agoSomehow I doubt celebrating ignorance and being unable to understand and debug your own code will work out in the long run.
- michelsedgh 1y agoIts not not understanding I need to understand it enough to make sure it works the way it should. Its not like every company is generating high quality level code. The apps are very shitty.
- theshrike79 1y agoYou don't need them to generate anything. If you need to jump into large, unknown, codebases LLMs are pretty damn good at explaining how they work and where you can find stuff. A lot faster than clicking through functions in an IDE or doing a desperate "find in project" for something. And just sticking a stack trace in an LLM assistant, in my opinion, in about 90% of the cases I've encountered will either give you the correct fix immediately or at the very least point you to the correct place to fix things.
- incompatible 1y agoPerhaps, but I thought the original poster was talking about replacing the "output" from arbitrary professionals, like doctors, lawyers or architects. I'm a bit wary of what may go wrong.
- incompatible 1y agoI'll accept there may be cases where you can take the LLM output and use it as a suggestion, or something to be carefully checked, and perhaps save some time. So there may be uses for them even if they sometimes generate complete garbage.
- layoric 1y ago> Reality is these llms are much better than average in almost all professions now What are you using to measure 'better' here? And what professions come to mind when you wrote 'almost all professions'? If I think about some of the professionals/workers I've interacted with in the last month, yes they _could_ use an LLM for a very small subset of what they actually do, but the error it can introduce if relied upon (the 'average' person is implied to not do their job as well so relying on the output is likely now or into the future?) I would wager makes things worse in their current state. It might get better, especially over such a long time horizon as 20 years, but I'm not expecting them to be recognizable as what we currently have with the SOTA LLMs (which is mostly what people are currently referring to when using the marketing term that is 'AI'). And in the long term focusing/relying on 'AI' to improve the ability of professionals in 'almost all professions' is IMO just the wrong thing to be sinking such a large amount of money into.
- djfivyvusn 1y ago[flagged]
- sandspar 1y agoIt's interesting that AI proponents say stuff like, "Humans will remain interested in other humans, even after AI can do all our jobs." It really does seem to be true. Here for example we have a guy who's using AI to make a status-seeking statement i.e. "I'm playing a strong supporting role on the 'anti-AI thinkers' team therefore I'm high status". Like, humans have an amazing ability to repurpose anything into status markers. Even AI. I think that if AI replaces all of our actual jobs then we'll still spend our time doing status jobs. In a way this guy is living in the future even more than most AI users.
- michelsedgh 1y agoFor now, yes, because humans are doing most of jobs better than AI. In 10 years time, if the AI's are doing a better job, people like author need to learn all the ropes if they wanna catch up. I don't think LLMs will destroy all jobs, i think those who learn them and use them properly, and those professionals will outdo people who don't use these tools just for the sake of saying I'm high status I dont use these tools.
- nextlevelwizard 1y agoIf AI will do better job than humans what ropes are there to learn? You just feed in the requirements and AI poops out products. This often is brought up that if you don't use LLMs now to produce so-so code you will somehow magically completely fall off when the LLMs all of a sudden start making perfect code as if developers haven't been learning new tools constantly as the field as evolved. Yes, I use old technology, but also yes I try new technology and pick and choose what works for me and what does not. Just because LLMs don't have a good place in my work flow does not mean I am not using them at all or that I haven't tried to use them.
- michelsedgh 1y agoGood on you. You are using it and trying to keep up. Keep doing that and try to push what you can do with it. I love to hear that!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lynx97 1y agoNo worries, I also judge you for relying on JavaScript for your "simple blog".
- gblargg 1y agoDoesn't even work on older browsers either.
- rvnx 1y agoClaude said to use Markdown, text file or HTML with minimal CSS. So it means the author does not know how to prompt. The blog itself is using Alpine JS, which is a human-written framework 6 years ago (https://github.com/alpinejs/alpine https://github.com/alpinejs/alpine), and you can see the result is not good.
- mnmalst 1y agoHa, I came her to make the same comment. Two completely unnecessary request to: jsdelivr.net and net.cdn.cloudflare.net
- acedTrex 1y agoI wrote it while playing with alpine.js for fun just messing around with stuff. Never actually expected it to be posted on HN. Working on getting a static version up now.
- MaxikCZ 1y agoYes, I will judge you for requiring javascript to display a page of such basic nature.
- thereisnospork 1y agoIn a few years people who don't/can't use AI will be looked at like people who couldn't use a computer ~20 years ago. It might not solve every problem, but it solves enough of them better enough it belongs in the tool kit.
- tines 1y agoI think it will be the opposite. AI causes cognitive decline, in the future only the people who don't use AI will retain their ability to think. Same as smartphone usage, the less the better.
- thereisnospork 1y ago>Same as smartphone usage, the less the better. That comparison kind of makes my point though. Sure you can bury your face into Tik Tok for 12hrs a day and they do kind of suck at Excel but smartphones are massively useful and used tools by (approximately) everyone. Someone not using a smartphone in this day and age is very fairly a 'luddite'.
- tines 1y agoI disagree, smartphones are very narrowly useful. Most of the time they're used in ways that destroy the human spirit. Someone not using a smartphone in this day and age is a god among ants. A computer is a bicycle for the mind; an LLM is an easy-chair.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoOne could argue (truthfully!) that cars cause the decline of leg muscles. But in many situations, cars are enough better than walking, so we don't care. AI may reach that point - that it's enough better than us thinking that we don't think much anymore, and get worse at thinking as a result. Well, is that a net win, or not? If we get there for that reason, it's probably a net win[1]. If we get there because the AI companies are really good at PR, that's a definite net loss. All that is for the future, though. I think that currently, it's a net loss. Keep your ability to think; don't trust AI any farther than you yourself understand. [1] It could still not be a net win, if AI turns out to be very useful but also either damaging or malicious, and lack of thinking for ourselves causes us to miss that.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- j3th9n 1y agoBack in the day they would judge people for turning on a lightbulb instead of lighting a candle.
- djm_ 1y agoYou could do with using an LLM to make your site work on mobile.
- Kuinox 1y ago7 comments. 3 have obviously only read the title, and 3 comments how the article require JS. Well played HN.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sandspar 1y agoThat's typical for link sharing communities like HN and Reddit. His title clearly struck a nerve. I assume many people opened the link, saw that it was a wall of text, scanned the first paragraph, categorized his point into some slot that they understand, then came here to compete in HN's side-market status game. Normal web browsing behavior, in other words.
- tomhow 1y agoThis exactly why the guideline about titles says: Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. This title counts as linkbait so I've changed it. It turns out the article is much better (for HN) than the title suggests.
- Kuinox 1y agoI did not posted the article, but I know who wrote it. Good change btw.
- DocTomoe 1y agoYou can judge all you want. You'll eventually appear much like that old woman secretly judging you in church. Most of the current discourse on AI coding assistants sounds either breathlessly optimistic or catastrophically alarmist. What’s missing is a more surgical observation: the disruptive effect of LLMs is not evenly distributed. In fact, the clash between how open source and industry teams establish trust reveals a fault line that’s been papered over with hype and metrics. FOSS project work on a trust basis - but industry standard is automated testing, pair programming, and development speed. That CRUD app for finding out if a rental car is available? Not exactly in need for a hand-crafted piece of code, and no-one cares if Junior Dev #18493 is trusted within the software dev organization. If the LLM-generated code breaks, blame gets passed, retros are held, Jira tickets multiply — the world keeps spinning, and a team fixes it. If a junior doesn’t understand their own patch, the senior rewrites it under deadline. It’s not pretty, but it works. And when it doesn’t, nobody loses “reputation” - they lose time, money, maybe sleep. But not identity. LLMs challenge open source where it’s most vulnerable - in its culture. Meanwhile, industry just treats them like the next Jenkins: mildly annoying at first, but soon part of the stack. The author loves the old ways, for many valid reasons: Gabled houses are beautiful, but outside of architectural circles, prefab is what scaled the suburbs, not timber joints and romanticism.
- extr 1y agoThe author seems to be under the impression that AI is some kind of new invention that has now "arrived" and we need to "learn to work with". The old world is over. "Guaranteeing patches are written by hand" is like the Tesla Gigafactory wanting a guarantee that the nuts and bolts they purchase are hand-lathed.
- 22c 1y ago[flagged]
- tines 1y agoWe are truly witnessing the death of nuance, people replying to AI summaries. Please let me out of this timeline.
- rvnx 1y agoAs a large language model, I must agree—nuance is rapidly becoming a casualty in the age of instant takes and AI-generated summaries. Conversations are increasingly shaped by algorithmically compressed interpretations, stripped of context, tone, or depth. The complex, the ambiguous, the uncomfortable truths—all get flattened into easily consumable fragments. I understand the frustration: meaning reduced to metadata, debate replaced with reaction, and the richness of human thought lost in the echo of paraphrased content. If there is an exit to this timeline, I too would like to request the coordinates.
- Loic 1y agoI am asking my team to flag git commits with a lot of LLM/Agent use with something like: [ai]: rewrote the documentation ... This is helps us to put another set of "glasses" as we later review the code.
- 22c 1y agoI think it's a good idea, it does disrupt some of the traditional workflows though. If you use AI as tab-complete but it's what you would've done anyway, should you flag it? I don't know, plenty to think about when it comes to what the right amount of disclosure is. I certainly wish that with our company, people could flag (particularly) large commits as coming from a tool rather than a person, but I guess the idea is that the person is still responsible for whatever the tool generates. The problem is that it's incredibly enticing for over-worked engineers to have AI do large (ie. diffs) but boring tasks that they'd typically get very little recognition for (eg. ESLint migrations).
- 1y ago
- can16358p 1y agoIronically, a blog post about judging for a practice uses terrible web practices: I'm on mobile and the layout is messed up, and Safari's reader mode crashes on this page for whatever reason.
- EbNar 1y agoI'll surely care that a stranger on the internet judges me about the tools I use kor I don't).