6 ms·

There are many tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars being poured into the smartest minds in the world to push this thing forward I'm not so confident that i

There are many tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars being poured into the smartest minds in the world to push this thing forward I'm not so confident that it'll only be code monkeys for too long

Nextgrid 8mo ago
Until they can magically increase context length to such a size that can conveniently fit the whole codebase, we're safe. It seems like the billions so far mostly go to talk of LLMs replacing every office worker, rather than any action to that effect. LLMs still have major (and dangerous) limitations that make this unlikely.
- esafak 8mo ago
  Models do not need to hold the whole code base in memory, and neither do you. You both search for what you need. Models can already memorize more than you !
  - Jensson 8mo ago
    > Models do not need to hold the whole code base in memory, and neither do you Humans rewire their mind to optimize it for the codebase, that is why new programmers takes a while to get up to speed in the codebase. LLM doesn't do that and until they do they need the entire thing in context. And the reason we can't do that today is that there isn't enough data in a single codebase to train an LLM to be smart about it, so first we need to solve the problem that LLM needs billions of examples to do a good job. That isn't on the horizon so we are probably safe for a while.
    - esafak 8mo ago
      Getting up to speed is a human problem. Computers are so fast they can 'get up to speed' from scratch for every session, and we help them with AGENTS files and newer things like memories; e.g., https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory It is not perfect yet but the tooling here is improving. I do not see a ceiling here. LSPs + memory solve this problem. I run into issues but this is not a big one for me.
  - Nextgrid 8mo ago
    I’ll believe it when coding agents can actually make concise & reusable code instead of reimplementing 10 slightly-different versions of the same basic thing on every run (this is not a rant, I would love for agents to stop doing that, and I know how to make them - with proper AGENTS.md that serves as a table of contents for where stuff is - but my point is that as a human I don’t need this and yet they still do for now).
    - Revanche1367 8mo ago
      In my experience they can definitely write concise and reusable code. You just need to say to them “write concise and reusable code.” Works well for Codex, Claude, etc.
      - Nextgrid 8mo ago
        Writing reusable code is of no use if the next iteration doesn’t know where it is and rewrites the same (reusable) code again.
        munksbeer 8mo ago
        I guide the AI. If I see it produce stuff that I think can be done better, I either just do it myself or point it in the right direction. It definitely doesn't do a good job of spotting areas ripe of building abstractions, but that is our job. This thing does the boring parts, and I get to use my creativity thinking how to make the code more elegant, which is the part I love. As far as I can tell, what's not to love about that?
        Nextgrid 8mo ago
        If you’re repeatedly prompting, I will defer to my usual retort when it comes to LLM coding: programming is about translating unclear requirements in a verbose (English) language into a terse (programming) language. It’s generally much faster for me to write the terse language directly than play a game of telephone with an intermediary in the verbose language for it to (maybe) translate my intentions into the terse language. In your example, you mention that you prompt the AI and if it outputs sub-par results you rewrite it yourself. That’s my point: over time, you learn what an LLM is good at and what it isn’t, and just don’t bother with the LLM for the stuff it’s not good at. Thing is, as a senior engineer, most of the stuff you do shouldn’t be stuff that an LLM is good at to begin with. That’s not the LLM replacing you, that’s the LLM augmenting you. Enjoy your sensible use of LLMs! But LLMs are not the silver bullet the billion dollars of investment desperately want us to believe.
- tstrimple 8mo ago
  I don't think the context size matters really. https://www.smart-words.org/jokes/project-tree-swing.png https://www.smart-words.org/jokes/project-tree-swing.png
- CaptainZapp 8mo ago
  AI can’t do your job But an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with a chatbot that can’t do your job. Cory Doctorow
philipwhiuk 8mo ago
> the smartest minds in the world Dunning–Kruger is everywhere in the AI grift. People who don't know a field trying to deploy some AI bot that solves the easy 10% of the problem so it looks good on the surface and assumes that just throwing money (which mostly just buys hardware) will solve it. They aren't "the smartest minds in the world". They are slick salesmen.
- ozozozd 8mo ago
  The other day someone referred to Claude Code as “the most complex terminal app” they’ve seen. Meanwhile folks are rendering videos in the terminal.
  - anon_hack33rr 8mo ago
    And if you didn't know, Claude Code is actually based on React and they are struggling to keep it at 60 FPS, whatever that means in the context of a terminal app They are writing markup to render monospaced characters in a terminal lol
    - chipsrafferty 8mo ago
      the smartest minds in the world
yurtguru 8mo ago
[dead]

There are many tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars being poured into the smartest minds in the world to push this thing forward I'm not so confident that it'll only be code monkeys for too long

Nextgrid 8mo ago

Until they can magically increase context length to such a size that can conveniently fit the whole codebase, we're safe. It seems like the billions so far mostly go to talk of LLMs replacing every office worker, rather than any action to that effect. LLMs still have major (and dangerous) limitations that make this unlikely.

esafak 8mo ago
Models do not need to hold the whole code base in memory, and neither do you. You both search for what you need. Models can already memorize more than you !
- Jensson 8mo ago
  > Models do not need to hold the whole code base in memory, and neither do you Humans rewire their mind to optimize it for the codebase, that is why new programmers takes a while to get up to speed in the codebase. LLM doesn't do that and until they do they need the entire thing in context. And the reason we can't do that today is that there isn't enough data in a single codebase to train an LLM to be smart about it, so first we need to solve the problem that LLM needs billions of examples to do a good job. That isn't on the horizon so we are probably safe for a while.
  - esafak 8mo ago
    Getting up to speed is a human problem. Computers are so fast they can 'get up to speed' from scratch for every session, and we help them with AGENTS files and newer things like memories; e.g., https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory It is not perfect yet but the tooling here is improving. I do not see a ceiling here. LSPs + memory solve this problem. I run into issues but this is not a big one for me.
- Nextgrid 8mo ago
  I’ll believe it when coding agents can actually make concise & reusable code instead of reimplementing 10 slightly-different versions of the same basic thing on every run (this is not a rant, I would love for agents to stop doing that, and I know how to make them - with proper AGENTS.md that serves as a table of contents for where stuff is - but my point is that as a human I don’t need this and yet they still do for now).
  - Revanche1367 8mo ago
    In my experience they can definitely write concise and reusable code. You just need to say to them “write concise and reusable code.” Works well for Codex, Claude, etc.
    - Nextgrid 8mo ago
      Writing reusable code is of no use if the next iteration doesn’t know where it is and rewrites the same (reusable) code again.
      - munksbeer 8mo ago
        I guide the AI. If I see it produce stuff that I think can be done better, I either just do it myself or point it in the right direction. It definitely doesn't do a good job of spotting areas ripe of building abstractions, but that is our job. This thing does the boring parts, and I get to use my creativity thinking how to make the code more elegant, which is the part I love. As far as I can tell, what's not to love about that?
        Nextgrid 8mo ago
        If you’re repeatedly prompting, I will defer to my usual retort when it comes to LLM coding: programming is about translating unclear requirements in a verbose (English) language into a terse (programming) language. It’s generally much faster for me to write the terse language directly than play a game of telephone with an intermediary in the verbose language for it to (maybe) translate my intentions into the terse language. In your example, you mention that you prompt the AI and if it outputs sub-par results you rewrite it yourself. That’s my point: over time, you learn what an LLM is good at and what it isn’t, and just don’t bother with the LLM for the stuff it’s not good at. Thing is, as a senior engineer, most of the stuff you do shouldn’t be stuff that an LLM is good at to begin with. That’s not the LLM replacing you, that’s the LLM augmenting you. Enjoy your sensible use of LLMs! But LLMs are not the silver bullet the billion dollars of investment desperately want us to believe.
tstrimple 8mo ago
I don't think the context size matters really. https://www.smart-words.org/jokes/project-tree-swing.png https://www.smart-words.org/jokes/project-tree-swing.png
CaptainZapp 8mo ago
AI can’t do your job But an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with a chatbot that can’t do your job. Cory Doctorow

philipwhiuk 8mo ago

> the smartest minds in the world Dunning–Kruger is everywhere in the AI grift. People who don't know a field trying to deploy some AI bot that solves the easy 10% of the problem so it looks good on the surface and assumes that just throwing money (which mostly just buys hardware) will solve it. They aren't "the smartest minds in the world". They are slick salesmen.

ozozozd 8mo ago
The other day someone referred to Claude Code as “the most complex terminal app” they’ve seen. Meanwhile folks are rendering videos in the terminal.
- anon_hack33rr 8mo ago
  And if you didn't know, Claude Code is actually based on React and they are struggling to keep it at 60 FPS, whatever that means in the context of a terminal app They are writing markup to render monospaced characters in a terminal lol
  - chipsrafferty 8mo ago
    the smartest minds in the world

yurtguru 8mo ago

[dead]