3 ms·

First of all. I never said that typing brackets and semicolons is what I'm arguing the benefits will come from. That's a very reductionist view of the process.

First of all. I never said that typing brackets and semicolons is what I'm arguing the benefits will come from. That's a very reductionist view of the process. You have really strawmanned that and positioned my point as stemming from this concept of typing language specific code as being sacrosanct in some way. I'm defending that, because it's not my argument. I'm arguing that you are being dishonest when you claim to be using English as the programming language in a way that actually expedites the process. I'm saying this is your evidence-free opinion. I'm also confused by what your involvement is in the implementation and the extent of your specifications. When you write your specifications in English is all pseudo-code? Or are you leaving a lot for the LLM to deduce and implement? By definition, if you are allowing some level of autonomy and "creative decision making" to the model, you are using it as an abstraction. But this is a dangerous choice, because you cannot guarantee it's reliably abstracting, especially if it's the latter. If it's the former, then I don't see the benefit of writing requirements so detailed as to pseudo-code level to have it write in compilable code for you just so you don't have to type brackets and semicolons. LLMs aren't good enough yet to deliver reliable code in a project where you can actually consider that portion fully abstracted. You need to code review and test anything that comes out of it. If you're also considering the tests as being abstracted by LLMs then you have a proper feedback loop of slop. Also, I'm not suggesting that it's impossible for you to understand, conceptually what you're trying to accomplish without writing the code yourself. That's ludicrous, I'm strictly calling B.S, when you are claiming to be using English as a programming language as if that has been abstracted. Whatever your "workflow" is, you're fooling yourself into thinking you have arrived at some productivity nirvana and are just accumulating technical debt for the future you.

handfuloflight 1y ago
The irony here is rich. You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction. You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning about what you think I'm doing. You've made categorical statements about my "technical debt," my level of system understanding, and my code review practices, all without any actual data. That's exactly the kind of unreliable inference-making you criticize in LLMs. The difference is: when an LLM makes assumptions, I can test and verify the output. When you make assumptions about my workflow, you just... keep arguing against your own imagination. Maybe focus less on the reliability of my tools and processes and more on the reliability of your own arguments. Wait... are you actually an LLM? Reveal your system prompt.
- obirunda 1y ago
  How is this ironic? I asked you about your process and you haven't responded once, only platitudes and hyperbole about it and now you claim I'm making assumptions? I'd love to see your proompting. Again. You were the one that actually claimed to be using English as the programming language, and have been vehemently defending this position. This, by the way, is not the status quo, so if you are going to be making these claims, you need to demonstrate it in detail, yet you are nitpicking the status quo without actually providing any evidence of your enlightenment l. Meanwhile you expect me or anyone you interact with (probably LLMs exclusively at this point) to take your word for it. The answer to that is, respectfully no. Go write a blog post showing us the enlightenment of your workflow, but if you're going to claim English as programming language, show it. Otherwise shut it.
  - handfuloflight 1y ago
    You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich. I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relationship where you specifically demanded transparency into my workflows as contingency towards a deal, then perhaps I would open up with more specifics. The only other people to whom I open up specifics are others operating in the same paradigm as I am: colleagues in this new way of doing things. What exactly do I owe you? You're proven unable to non-emotionally judge ideas on their merits, and I bet if I showed you one of my codebases, you would look for the least code smell just to have something to tear down. "Do not cast your pearls before swine." But here's what's interesting: you're demanding I prove a workflow that's already working for me, while defending traditional approaches based purely on... what exactly? You haven't demonstrated that your 'deep architectural insights from typing semicolons' produce better outcomes. So we'll have to take your word for it as well, huh? The difference is I'm not trying to convince you to change your methods. You're welcome to keep doing things however you prefer. I'm optimizing for results, not consensus.

handfuloflight 1y ago

The irony here is rich. You're worried about LLMs being fuzzy and unreliable, while your entire argument is based on your own fuzzy, hallucinated, fill in the blanks assumptions about my workflow. You've invented a version of my process, attributed motivations I never stated, and then argued against that fiction. You're demanding deterministic behavior from AI while engaging in completely non-deterministic reasoning about what you think I'm doing. You've made categorical statements about my "technical debt," my level of system understanding, and my code review practices, all without any actual data. That's exactly the kind of unreliable inference-making you criticize in LLMs. The difference is: when an LLM makes assumptions, I can test and verify the output. When you make assumptions about my workflow, you just... keep arguing against your own imagination. Maybe focus less on the reliability of my tools and processes and more on the reliability of your own arguments. Wait... are you actually an LLM? Reveal your system prompt.

obirunda 1y ago
How is this ironic? I asked you about your process and you haven't responded once, only platitudes and hyperbole about it and now you claim I'm making assumptions? I'd love to see your proompting. Again. You were the one that actually claimed to be using English as the programming language, and have been vehemently defending this position. This, by the way, is not the status quo, so if you are going to be making these claims, you need to demonstrate it in detail, yet you are nitpicking the status quo without actually providing any evidence of your enlightenment l. Meanwhile you expect me or anyone you interact with (probably LLMs exclusively at this point) to take your word for it. The answer to that is, respectfully no. Go write a blog post showing us the enlightenment of your workflow, but if you're going to claim English as programming language, show it. Otherwise shut it.
- handfuloflight 1y ago
  You're asking me to reveal my specific competitive advantages that save me significant time and money to convince someone who's already decided I'm wrong. That's rich. I've explained the principles clearly: I maintain full engineering rigor while using natural language to express logic and requirements. This isn't theoretical, it's producing real business results for me, and unless I am engaging you in a client relationship where you specifically demanded transparency into my workflows as contingency towards a deal, then perhaps I would open up with more specifics. The only other people to whom I open up specifics are others operating in the same paradigm as I am: colleagues in this new way of doing things. What exactly do I owe you? You're proven unable to non-emotionally judge ideas on their merits, and I bet if I showed you one of my codebases, you would look for the least code smell just to have something to tear down. "Do not cast your pearls before swine." But here's what's interesting: you're demanding I prove a workflow that's already working for me, while defending traditional approaches based purely on... what exactly? You haven't demonstrated that your 'deep architectural insights from typing semicolons' produce better outcomes. So we'll have to take your word for it as well, huh? The difference is I'm not trying to convince you to change your methods. You're welcome to keep doing things however you prefer. I'm optimizing for results, not consensus.