18 ms·

AI’s coding evolution hinges on collaboration and trust

• crooked-v 1y ago
  For me it's simple: even the best models are "lazy" and will confidently declare they're finished when they're obviously not, and the immensely increased amount of training effort to get ChatGPT 5's mild improvements on benchmarks suggests that that quality won't go away anytime soon.
  • worldsayshi 1y ago
    Sounds like it's partially about a nuanced trade-off. It can just as well be too eager and add changes I didn't ask for. Being lazy is better than continuing on a bad path.
    • crooked-v 1y ago
      There's a long distance between "nuanced behavior" and what it actually does now, which is "complete 6 items of an explicit 10-item task list and then ask the user again if they want to continue".
  • anthonypasq 1y ago
    gpt-5 is extremely cheap, what makes you think they couldn't produce a larger, smarter, more expensive model? gpt-5 was created to be able to service 200m daily active users.
    • bakugo 1y ago
      > what makes you think they couldn't produce a larger, smarter, more expensive model? Because they already did try making a much larger, more expensive model, it was called GPT-4.5. It failed, it wasn't actually that much smarter despite being insanely expensive, and they retired it after a few months.
      • anthonypasq 1y ago
        that was not a reasoning model.
        • ForHackernews 1y ago
          None of them are reasoning models. Some of them have a loop of word-outputting.
• mikewarot 1y ago
  There's been a strong theme recently here on HN of confusing programming (the act of writing code to meet specifications) and Engineering(the writing of specifications, and the oversight of said process, along with overview of testing). AI is definitely not ready for an Engineering role. My recent experience with ChatGPT5(Preview) via Visual Studio Code tells me that it might perform acceptably as a junior programmer. However, because I'm an old retired self taught programmer who only ever managed 1 other programmer, I lack the experience to know what's acceptable as a Junior Programmer at FAANG and elsewhere.
  • catigula 1y ago
    No offense but your experience with AI is fairly primitive if that's where you're at.
    • bigfickpm 1y ago
      just stop yeah?
    • fmbb 1y ago
      Please elaborate. Share what you built and how you prompted and what you are making from it, and how many tokens you paid to rummage through.
      • anthonypasq 1y ago
        you can't proclaim any sort of knowledge about AI's currently capabilities by opening up a codebase and typing a couple prompts into the vscode agent.
        • fmbb 1y ago
          What are you building? How? How much is it making you?
      • mikewarot 1y ago
        I didn't want to get into the details, because I've already talked about BitGrid here endlessly, and was trying to stay on the topic of AI usefulness, but since you asked. I'm trying to build a software stack that can eventually take something like a PyTorch model, and unwind everything, resulting in a directed acyclic graph of individual bit-level operations (OR, AND, XOR). That graph will then be compiled into a bitstream suitable for an FPGA-like substrate that eliminates the memory/compute divide, the BitGrid[1]. FPGA routing is a non-trivial problem, I'm hoping to get it down to seconds. I'm currently trying to build the software stack to make it usable. The goal is to answer questions about BitGrid: How efficiently can I pack a program into the hardware? Is the model I've chosen for a cell optimal? How many femtojoules per operation would a cell actually take? If the answers are favorable, then in the deep (and improbable) future, it's possible that there could be a set of racks with an array of thousands resulting in a system that could stream ChatGPT at aggregate rate of a gigatoken per second, for far less than the Trillion dollars Meta plans to spend. This isn't just some CRUD application with a web front end. There are a number of layers of abstraction at play, and the LLMs seem to handle it well if you limit the depth under consideration. [1] BitGrid eliminates the traditional memory/compute divide that causes most of the energy consumption of CPUs, GPUs, and other accelerators. Even FPGA systems tend to focus on emulation of these models, and routing fabric for minimum latency, instead of maximum performance. Because all the active lines only reach nearest neighbors, power consumption for a given operation can be far lower than the traditional approach. PS: I pay $10/month for GitHub CoPilot, which apparently now includes ChatGPT5
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• echelon 1y ago
  AI can't replace humans, but it can be an exoskeleton for human pilots. AI code tab-complete is fantastic. It's at least an order of magnitude more powerful than IDE-assisted auto refactors. AI graphics design tools are probably the single best thing in the field. Editing photos, creating new graphics, making marketing materials, shooting and editing videos is now extremely easy. It's a 100x speed up and a 1000x cost reduction. You still have to re-roll the generations repeatedly, but with a competent editing tool you can speed run any design work. This is one area where non-experts can also use the tools.
  • transjt 1y ago
    [dead]
• xaindume 1y ago
  Using a calculator won't make you a mathematician, but a mathematicians with a calculator can show you amazing things.
  • leptons 1y ago
    Calculators wont give you completely wrong results, not even once, where "AI" does that way too often. If calculators did too, mathemeticians simply would not use them.
    • b112 1y ago
      Most specifically, random wrong results. Some calculators have issues with rounding, but if you understand those issues, it's consistent. Imagine driving your car, you turn right, but today turning right slams on the brakes, and 10 people rear end you! That's current AI.
      • ForHackernews 1y ago
        This is why using LLMs to generate deterministic code (with human-verified tests) is a much better idea than including LLMs directly in runtime systems.
    • RamtinJ95 1y ago
      Yes in terms of raw LLM, but with some tools or a MCP the “AI” will never be wrong.
      • leptons 1y ago
        That is not true at all.
      • tempodox 1y ago
        Including browsers with built-in “AI” & MCP draining user’s bank accounts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45004846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45004846
• catigula 1y ago
  Can AI categorically not be a "real coder" or is the limitation in more trivial things such as scope and breadth? My experiences suggest to me that it is technically quite close.
• UncleEntity 1y ago
  > These kinds of complex tasks can be difficult for AI development tools to navigate, resulting in hallucinations about where the bug is or its root cause, as well as irrelevant suggestions or code fixes with subtle problems. How is this any different than the way I program? I've contributed genuinely useful features to FLOSS projects "as well as irrelevant suggestions or code fixes with subtle problems", mostly the latter as there was always a few stages of improvement and/or finishing by the core devs of the program I used to haunt. Honestly, I was less than half as useful as the current crop of robots and they still tolerated (in fact, encouraged) my involvement.
  • arscan 1y ago
    > Honestly, I was less than half as useful as the current crop of robots and they still tolerated (in fact, encouraged) my involvement. Don’t sell yourself short. External contributors are extremely valuable as they are often users and provide real world validation of a need for whatever they are contributing. They also retain any knowledge for any feedback they receive that they can apply to future contributions. And they also become advocates for that software, helping it grow its user base. LLMs, not so much.
• manoDev 1y ago
  I'm tired of the anthropomorphization marketing behind AI driving this kind of discussion. In a few years, all this talk will sound as dumb as stating "MS Word spell checker will replace writers" or "Photoshop will replace designers". We'll reap the productivity benefits from this new tool, create more work for ourselves, output will stabilize at a new level and salaries will stagnate again, as it always happens.
  • amelius 1y ago
    > tired of anthropomorphization The thing is trained on heaps and heaps of human output. You better anthropomorphize if you want to stay ahead of the curve.
  • kazinator 1y ago
    Generative AI is replacing writers, designers, actors, ... it is nothing like just a spell checker or Phtoshop. Everyday, I see ads on YouTube with smooth-talking, real-looking AI-generated actors. Each one represents one less person that would have been paid. There is no exact measure of correctness in design; one bad bit does not stop the show. The clients don't even want real art. Artists sometimes refer to commercial work as "selling out", referring to hanging their artistic integrity on the hook to make a living. Now "selling out" competes with AI which has no artistic integrity to hang on the hook, works 24 hours a day for peanuts and is astonishingly prolific.
    • biophysboy 1y ago
      YouTube has the lowest quality ads of any online platform I use by several orders of magnitude. AI being used for belly fat and erectile dysfunction ads is not exactly good for its creative reputation
      • matheusd 1y ago
        Local governments in BR have already made ads using generative AI that were shown during prime time TV hours[1]. You can argue that is a bad thing (local designers/content producers/actors/etc lost revenue, while the money was sent to $BigTech) or that this was a good thing (lower cost to make ad means taxpayer money saved, paying $BigTech has lower chance of corruption vs hiring local marketing firm - which is very common here). [1]https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/tecnologia/video-feito-com-inteligencia-artificial-gera-polemica-no-para-entenda/ https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/tecnologia/video-feito-com-inte...
• kazinator 1y ago
  Nope, that's not the reason. It's because it's just a query that probabilistically creates a garden path of tokens out of a compressed form of the training data, requiring a real coder to evaluate which parts of are useful. Amazing how someone writing for an IEEE website can't keep their eyes on the fundamentals.
• oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
• jjangkke 1y ago
  I'm fatigued by these articles that just broadly claim AI can't code because its painting a broad stroke against a widely diverse use of AI for different stacks. It's horribly outdated way of thinking that an singular AI entity would be able to handle all stacks all problems directed at it because no developer is using it that way. AI is a great tool for both coders and artists and these outlandish titles that grab attention really seem to be echo chambers aimed at people who are convinced that AI isn't going to replace them which is true but the opposite is also true.
  • tjr 1y ago
    A lot of comments here seem to be similar. I see people claiming that AI has all but taken over doing their work for them, and others claiming that it's almost useless. But usually, nobody even briefly mentions what the work is (other than, presumably, something related to programming). I imagine there's a big difference in using AI for building, say, an online forum vs. building a flight control system, both in terms of what the AI theoretically can do, and in terms of what we maybe should or should not be letting the AI do.
    • jjangkke 1y ago
      I can confidently state that for CRUD web apps, its truly over as in those jobs are never going to command the same wages it once used to. With the recent models its now encroaching similarly on all fronts, I think the next few iterations we'll see LLM solidify itself as a meta-compiler that will be deployed locally for more FCS type systems. At the end of the day the hazards are still same with or without AI, you need checks and bounds, you need proper vetting of code and quality but overall it probably doesn't make sense to charge an hourly rate because an AI would drastically cut down such billing schemes. For me "replacement" is largely a 70~80% reduction in either hourly wages, job positions or both and from the job market data I see it can get there.
      • TheRoque 1y ago
        "crud web apps" sounds like WordPress or Django anyways I mean, it's already kind of valueless ? The true value lies in what this crud app is about, marketing, and the extra bits you can add to make it special.
• g4omingron 1y ago
  The article is so banal
• SKILNER 1y ago
  "According to the study, AI still struggles with several crucial facets of coding: sweeping scopes involving huge codebases, the extended context lengths of millions of lines of code, higher levels of logical complexity, and long-horizon or long-term planning about the structure and design of code to maintain code quality." uhhh, not sure even the best people or teams are very good at this either. Condemning AI for not being capable of something we're not capable of, ok... “If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name.” This is called the specification process, which hopefully is already occurring today. There's so much self-serving bias in articles like this, as well as the comments on HN, Reddit, etc. It's good to critique AI, but that self-serving line is frequently crossed by many people.
• strangescript 1y ago
  I think everyone is looking for back and white switches. Either coding agents are writing your code or they aren't. Humans will always be in the mix in some form, but the amount and skills they use is going to be radically different as time goes on. I personally haven't written any significant code by hand since claude code landed. I also have a high tolerance for prompting and re-prompting. Some of my colleagues would get upset if it wasn't mostly one shotting issues and had a really low tolerance for it going off the rails. Since gpt-5-high came out, I rarely have to re-prompt. Strong CI pipeline and well defined AGENTS.md goes an incredibly long way.
• pamelafox 1y ago
  Both humans and coding agents have their strengths and weaknesses, but I've been appreciating help from coding agents, especially with languages or frameworks where I have less expertise, and the agent has more "knowledge", either in its weights or in its ability to more quickly ingest documentation. One weakness of coding agents is that sometimes all it sees are the codes, and not the outputs. That's why I've been working on agent instructions/tools/MCP servers that empower it with all the same access that I have. For example, this is a custom chat mode for GitHub Copilot in VS Code: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Azure-Samples/azure-search-openai-demo/refs/heads/main/.github/chatmodes/fixer.chatmode.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Azure-Samples/azure-search... I give it access to run code, run tests and see the output, run the local server and see the output, and use the Playwright MCP tools on that local server. That gives the agent almost every ability that I have - the only tool that it lacks is the breakpoint debugger, as that is not yet exposed to Copilot. I'm hoping it will be in the future, as it would be very interesting to see how an agent would step through and inspect variables. I've had a lot more success when I actively customize the agent's environment, and then I can collaborate more easily with it.
• agentultra 1y ago
  “Feels primitive,” is holding up a lot of assumptions. What feels primitive to me is how we approach programming in industry as a process of trial and error rather than one of rigour. These are tools that automate copy-pasting from Stack Overflow and GitHub, running tools, and generating a ton of noise to sift through. They hallucinate code, documentation, and various other artifacts that are sometimes useful and are occasionally complete BS. Some people find that they can make useful tools out of these things. Great. A real programmer is still a human. Update: nothing wrong with trial and error as a process. I use it a lot. But there are lots of places where we use this method that seem inappropriate and sometimes even dangerous. Yet it’s the most common tool we have and everything starts to look like a nail.
• csours 1y ago
  My best understanding/explanation of LLM tools is "plausible extension of a context" That is, you have some context, ie the prompt and any other text, and the LLM produces a plausible continuation or alteration of that prompt and text. My intuition leads me to a thought like: To progress, the context must compress into a fractal representation. I feel very confident that someone smarter and MUCH better paid than me is already working on this.
• narag 1y ago
  I can't help thinking that a big factor is how bad our tools were before. There are many leaking abstractions, boilerplate code and cruft. Dealing with that fills a sizeable percent of a programmer's job. These tools seem great because they are less sensitive than humans to the mess and lift us over the tedious work. But at the same time, they're giving us an excuse to not fix what needed to be fixed and, in doing so, they're adding more crap to the heap. Maybe what we need is forcing the tools to build on a simpler base, so we can keep an understanding of the results.
• jbstack 1y ago
  But what is meant by "real coder"? Does it mean an experienced senior coder? In that case, no, AI isn't ready to replace one. How about a junior coder who is fresh out of university and starting his first job? Surely that counts as a "real coder"? I'd argue that AI can and does already replace such coders, depending on the type of work they have been assigned.
  • gchamonlive 1y ago
    Could you elaborate your argument? I'd say AI is far from replacing any human contributor at this point. Context doesn't work the same way as memory + experience in humans. While humans have an impression and a flexible mental model of any single domain, AI needs hard data, which is hard to manage with context and can't really be worked around by fine-tuning in practice, lest you have to retrain the model on each and every code merge.
    • jbstack 1y ago
      Sure. My point is that it's not unusual for the quality of work of a junior coder to be fairly low, and that work typically needs to be double checked by someone more senior before it can be used in production. Often, an LLM will produce a higher quality output than that junior developer in which case, given that the work has to be checked by a senior coder no matter what, the LLM can replace the junior developer. Also, not every project is highly complex or involves huge codebases and, for those that are, a junior developer might be assigned to a reasonably self contained and small module within the project (i.e. something that a LLM can do better at). Finally, although this wasn't part of my original argument: before modern LLMs, let's say that a senior developer could produce N units of work per Y units of time. Now, with the help of a LLM, they are able to produce XN units of work per Y unit of time. I don't think it's too controversial to claim that some portion of developers are now more productive than they were before. And if developers in general are more productive, then you can expect some reduction in the number of developers that you need for a given project. So, in an indirect sense, LLMs are already capable of replacing coders.
      • 1y ago
• kstenerud 1y ago
  “If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name” If it's taking you that long to direct the AI, then either you're throwing too small a problem at it, or too big a problem at it, or you're not directing its attention properly. In a way, your prompts should feel like writing user documentation: Refactor all of the decode functions in decoder.rs to return the number of bytes decoded in addition to the decoded values they already return. While refactoring, follow these principles: * Use established best practices and choose the most idiomatic approaches. * Avoid using clone or unwrap. * Update the unit tests to account for the extra return values, and make sure the tests check the additional return values. When you're finished, run clippy and fix any issues it finds. Then run rustfmt on the crate.
  • MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    And then for some bizarre reason sometimes it doesn't really work, AI added a bunch of random shit, then you can feel your rage bubbling up in real-time as you have to re-prompt it.
    • kstenerud 1y ago
      I've yet to have that happen. But then again so far I've only used it for Rust, and it's hard for the AI to maintain hallucinations with such a strict compiler.
  • kazinator 1y ago
    I feel you've done a decent job of disguising "you're not approaching it with the right mindset".
    • kstenerud 1y ago
      It's more "you need to learn how a tool really works in order to use it most effectively" Talking to a chat bot like you'd talk to a human is a quick way to be disappointed. They don't work that way, despite sometimes sounding like they do.
• WheelsAtLarge 1y ago
  True, but it's catching up fast. A year ago, I used AI for small OS scripts. It worked fine and saved me the time of looking up switches for commands. Now, I can ask it to create a simple game of about 200 lines, and it does a pretty good job of writing bug-free code within a few seconds. It's only going to get better. Even if the tech doesn't improve further, I can see a future where all apps are endlessly configurable. A big part of my career has been the modification of enterprise software to fit a company's needs. Rarely was any one addition more than a few hundred lines of code. I can see a future where there will be simple options for a non-coder to add to an app. True, it's not a coder, but that doesn't mean it won't fundamentally change how apps are made and it will reduce the number of master programmers needed. It won't replace all programmers, but it will greatly reduce the number that are needed, which country they work in and the language they use to program apps. Programming has mainly been a career that requires the individual to understand English. That is changing. I can see a future where code can be created in multiple human languages. Programming was well-paid because relatively few people had the expertise to do it. That won't be the case, and the pay will adjust downward as needed. AI might not be a coder, but it will let many more people become coders. In the future, coding will be in the same pay range as clerical work. Companies will be hiring Programming Clerks rather than Programming Engineers.
  • hvb2 1y ago
    > Programming has mainly been a career that requires the individual to understand English. Disagree, programming is a career where in order to be good you can 1. Break down a big problem into smaller ones, creating abstractions 2. Implement those abstractions one by one to end up with a full program 3. Refactor those abstractions if requirements change or (better) reimplement an abstraction a different way You do all of this to make complex software digestible by a human, so that they don't have to have the entire system 'in context'. This prophesied view of software development will mean you end up with code that's likely only maintainable by the model itself. I can't imagine the vendor lock in of that.... You have the source, but it is in such a state that no human can maintain it?
    • didericis 1y ago
• MorehouseJ09 1y ago
  “If it takes longer to explain to the system all the things you want to do and all the details of what you want to do, then all you have is just programming by another name,” I think this is going to make the difference between junior and senior engineers even more drastic than it is today. It's really hard to know what/how to even describe real problems to these tools, and the people who invest the most in their tooling now, are going to be most successful. It's hard for someone who hasn't designed a large codebase already to do this in an ai native way where they don't have the experience of abstracting at the right level and things like that. Today's equivalent, I've often found some of the best engineers I know have insane setups with nvim or emacs. They invest in their tool chain, and are now bringing AI into.
  • roxolotl 1y ago
    That quote really perfectly encapsulates the challenge with these tools. There is an assumption that inherently code is hard to write and so if you could code in natural language it would save time. But code isn’t actually that hard to write. Sure some people are genuinely bad at it just like I’m genuinely bad at drawing but a bit of practice and most people can be perfectly competent at it. The hard part is the engineering. Understanding and breaking down the problem, and then actually solving it. If all we gain out of these tools is that we don’t have to write code by hand anymore they are moderately useful but they won’t really be a step change in software development speed.
    • elcritch 1y ago
      It's not too different in my opinion from the skills need to build complicated machinery like Boeing 747s despite how much Wallstreet and PHBs want to believe it's fungible. Having competent experienced engineers on the ground level watching these processes and constantly revising and adapting to everything from personnel, material, or vendor changes is so far irreplaceable. Maybe if we get super AGI one day. Even then I suspect that from a thermodynamics perspective that might not be cost effective as you often need localized on site intelligence. It's an interesting question but I bet humans combined with AI tooling will remain cost competitive for a long time barring leaps in say quantum compute. After all organic brains operate at the atomic level already and were honed in an extremely competitive environment for billions of years. The calories and resources required to create highly efficient massively powerful neural compute had incredibly thin resource "margins" with huge advantages for species to utilize.
• shinycode 1y ago
  There is so much more than coding, it’s the business rules, the constraints held in other parts of the company, the undocumented code that holds a company with no written context … you start a project from scratch ? AI can help you but you better be highly specific because hallucinations and errors will be there along the way. Now for the hundreds or billion of loc of private source code softwares that holds thousands of companies with not tightly formatted context and most of it just in some people’s memory … how would AI replace that ? Try let an AI rewrite a full ERP responsible of business logic with costly consequences on business and money … It will be just a tool, where sometimes we loose time and most time save a bit of time if we use it well
• colecut 1y ago
  AI is apparently not ready to take my order at Popeyes either
• stocksinsmocks 1y ago
  So the author is providing some personal annotations and opinions on a summary of a “new paper” which was actually published five months ago, which itself was a summary of research with the author’s personal annotations and opinions added? These are exactly the kind of jobs that I want AI to automate.
  • majormajor 1y ago
    It's more likely that AI will let more people "write" random blogs and articles about things they haven't sufficiently actually researched... you're gonna get more spam, not less.
    • zaphirplane 1y ago
      The solution is more AI, in the browser to tell you this link is to a rubbish AI blog, AI in the mail client to tell you which email content to ignore and AI in the fridge, in the bathroom. Till each person is so tightly locked in a group bubble they have no idea how colourful the world is and how many different personalities exist that for the most bring something to the table
  • tempodox 1y ago
    Having your opinions and personal remarks automated by “AI” sounds really smart.
• pharrington 1y ago
  My #1 issue with AI for programming is that while I do trust it to produce OK boilerplate code, I can also just download that boilerplate code, if I haven't already written it myself. Free software is the answer.
  • the__alchemist 1y ago
    This is profound, and I think you have dove to the core of why LLMs are taking off for code. They fix a problem: the mutual incompatibility between software. "Free software" is not the answer, as it's used today: for example, the canonical Free Software OS, Linux, is fragmented into many mutually incompatible ABIs. We need to tear down barriers between software. Barriers between languages, frameworks and OS ABIs. I don't have a good plan , but think it is the true solution. LLMs paper over these incompatibilities, and in doing so, provide value. Imperfect, but good enough until we destroy the barriers properly. Example: Why am I using an LLM for my rust code? Because it is taking code that solves my problem, but in Python, C, or papers, and translating in a way compatible with the rust dialect I use. The problem is solved multiple times, but not in a way I can use without a translation layer. LLMs provide that.
    • pharrington 1y ago
      Yeah I think you're spot on with the compatibility issues. Obviously YMMV depending on the languages and libraries in question, but yeah there's no one size fits all solution, and writing boilerplate code is the most boring thing in software development. That's the big thing that's warmed up to programming languages with good macro systems in the past few years (and I absolutely LOVE Zig's comptime paradigm). At the same time, I've got serious questions about the programmers who dismiss macros as overkill for their needs, but then immediately pull out the LLM.
      • tjr 1y ago
        Macros are harder to learn. But I've wondered the same thing. On some level, the coding superpowers allegedly wrought by LLMs seem reminiscent of proficient use of macros. But most programmers don't use them, and most programming languages don't support them.
• dwheeler 1y ago
  I don't like the phrase "real coder". It's not clear what it means. I really like the word "assistant" for what we have today. The AI code assistant tools available today, like Claude Code and GitHub Copilot, can't replace humans in doing software development. Not even close. But they are often useful to human developers, and today, that's the more important measure. I've been spending time with various AI tools, especially Claude Code and GitHub Copilot. They're amazing one minute, and they make bone-headedly bad recommendations the next. It takes effort to learn how to create good prompts, and if you want the results to be good, you have to review and critique the results. I'm particularly concerned about security. They're definitely happy to write insecure code. If you know what you're doing, prompt them well, and review their results, you can get good results. I don't know if they'll ever reach "full autonomy". They don't need to get there to be useful.
  • bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > I don't know if they'll ever reach "full autonomy". They don't need to get there to be useful They do, unless you just want to babysit them all the time Maybe babysitting a bad machine sounds great to you, it sounds like the torment nexus to me
• gerdesj 1y ago
  LLMs are not ... well ... I've just tried to get ChatGPT to help me generate a plumbing part that I will 3D print. Bit bizarre but the part in question (which is currently cracked) holds the other part in place and that provides the water seal with two O rings. I got so far with OpenSCAD. I started off with describing a part that Chat came back with as a "cup". Fair enough and so far so magical. Then I asked it to put a helical screw thread on the inside of the part. It suggested a popular library for this (BOSL2) and then got things a bit wrong. This is how it goes: Chat int al will get you close but as things get more specialized it will start to go off piste and tumble. I own a couple of slide rules. If I read them incorrectly then I will get a calculation wrong. Chat n that are just very fancy slide rules and I still find them fabulous.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• patternFarmer71 1y ago
  Am I the only person who stops reading an article now when I see the use of em dashes?
• bgwalter 1y ago
  The people who are positive about "AI" like Roychoudhury have warmed a lot of chairs: https://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/cs/people/abhik/ https://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/cs/people/abhik/ Of course, he also had a startup for an agentic "AI" approach for software. I bet he hasn't written any real software like many academics. We should not listen to these people who chair conferences and let them dictate the future of real hackers.
• elizabetht2 1y ago
  [dead]