3 ms·

My personal "wow" moment was less about it being able to do the same that I could do with it, just faster, but instead that together we could could build things

My personal "wow" moment was less about it being able to do the same that I could do with it, just faster, but instead that together we could could build things that I wasn't able to build before (or unwilling to spend the time to learn maybe). So a bunch of stuff are suddenly "unlocked", as long as you know how to verify it properly.

timbert 4mo ago
^ This! I have been able to build applications that I couldn't dream of before, not because of a lack of capability on my part, but because of time: I don't have the time to learn all of the new APIs and frameworks to accomplish my goal. Now I can build far more complex useful applications, with functions and features that would take me months or more to learn how to code. The downside is that I didn't learn how to use those APIs, but it can be argued that these skills are low value to begin with. APIs change, there are competing APIs that do the same thing, and you may only use that skill for one project and then move on. Gaining those skills can be a big time sink and may not result in long-term gain. Think of all the time spent learning the ins and outs of come-and-gone APIs and frameworks over the decades (I chose not to provide examples to save the resulting side-arguments, but I know you can rattle some off in your head). Those APIs and frameworks were bridges to make developing easier for the common developer, but they change so quickly that I'd argue they waste our time, and lead to almost endless re-work as we re-architect our software for the framework de jour. And they grow in complexity over time, ultimately becoming the next bloated framework. It's an endless, wasteful cycle. Maybe AI can help us get out of that.
- _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
  Sounds like you appreciate the part where AI is an entropy machine.
bluefirebrand 4mo ago
If you weren't able to build it before then you aren't able to properly verify it Verifying is harder than building!
- embedding-shape 4mo ago
  Ok, so before I couldn't (/didnt have the time to) build cross-platform native desktop applications with minimal amount of 3rd party dependencies, but now I "can". What exactly am I unable to verify here?
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    Couldn't is "didn't have the skills to" That's pretty different from "didn't have the time/money/motivation to" If you didn't have the skills to build something before then you don't have the skills to verify something is correct after Clicking around a finished UI is not verifying
    - embedding-shape 4mo ago
      > That's pretty different from "didn't have the time/money/motivation to" Maybe start at the first message here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553444 I still don't have the skill/knowledge to build cross-platform native applications the way I'm doing it with an agent now. I am still able to verify it's correct. How is that possible if what you say is correct? > Clicking around a finished UI is not verifying Definitively a part of it, if you care about having mouse interactions and having graphical UIs.
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  Verifying is harder than building for some problems, but not all. I think part of the trick of using AI is applying it where verification is easy.
- sameerds 4mo ago
  > If you weren't able to build it before then you aren't able to properly verify it GP said "couldn't dream of building". To make an analogy, I wouldn't dream of building a house if I had to do every bit of brick-laying myself. But with others doing what I can't do, I can indeed dream of building a house and I do know how to verify that the house was built to satisfy my dream.
WarmWash 4mo ago
There was a period where computer+grandmaster was the ultimate winning force in chess. It lasted a few years before it was just computer.
thrixton 4mo ago
Absolutely. Things which used to take me a week to grind through, finding edge cases, trial and error, researching online, now takes an afternoon directing an agent and verifying the solution. For a generalist, it's a huge force multiplier.
- b112 4mo ago
  Wonderful now. In the future, there will be no more generalists with your capabilities. At all. No one will ever develop the skill. We're at the end of our career's lifetime. We're like the horse watching more and more cars appearing. Within a generation, the coding languages we use today will all vanish, to be replaced with direct to metal methods, assembly, etc. The only reason C exists, is for humans. PHP, rust, python is for humans. There will be no more compilers. No more human-readable languages. No more scripting with readable code. No more open or closed source. Imagine taking every aspect of computing which is designed for humans to understand, and removing it, because it's redundant. Now once removed, and once humans no longer understand on their own, imagine trying to build something independently? Imagine trying to bootstrap modern compute, without all the layers which came before? My point is that soon, perhaps 20 years, most humans will be incapable of coding, developing, or working with compute in any way outside of an end-user role. Even those previously skilled, will now be looking at an entire kernel written in assembly. And that's before new CPUs appear, with new assembly. New assembly, once again, not designed by or for humans to understand. And yes, current assembly is designed that way. We are not simply looking at a bit of help here. We're looking at the entire end of every single computing job, ever. We're looking at the complete loss of control, of something which is the underpinning of our entire society. Every aspect of everything we have, runs on a chip now. Personal transport, everything in health care, everything in resource extraction, everything harvesting food through to delivery to table, all of it involves some aspect of compute. And we soon will not comprehend nor create that underlying aspect of society. I dunno. It all seems like the answer to the fermi paradox.

timbert 4mo ago

^ This! I have been able to build applications that I couldn't dream of before, not because of a lack of capability on my part, but because of time: I don't have the time to learn all of the new APIs and frameworks to accomplish my goal. Now I can build far more complex useful applications, with functions and features that would take me months or more to learn how to code. The downside is that I didn't learn how to use those APIs, but it can be argued that these skills are low value to begin with. APIs change, there are competing APIs that do the same thing, and you may only use that skill for one project and then move on. Gaining those skills can be a big time sink and may not result in long-term gain. Think of all the time spent learning the ins and outs of come-and-gone APIs and frameworks over the decades (I chose not to provide examples to save the resulting side-arguments, but I know you can rattle some off in your head). Those APIs and frameworks were bridges to make developing easier for the common developer, but they change so quickly that I'd argue they waste our time, and lead to almost endless re-work as we re-architect our software for the framework de jour. And they grow in complexity over time, ultimately becoming the next bloated framework. It's an endless, wasteful cycle. Maybe AI can help us get out of that.

_DeadFred_ 4mo ago
Sounds like you appreciate the part where AI is an entropy machine.

bluefirebrand 4mo ago

If you weren't able to build it before then you aren't able to properly verify it Verifying is harder than building!

embedding-shape 4mo ago
Ok, so before I couldn't (/didnt have the time to) build cross-platform native desktop applications with minimal amount of 3rd party dependencies, but now I "can". What exactly am I unable to verify here?
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  Couldn't is "didn't have the skills to" That's pretty different from "didn't have the time/money/motivation to" If you didn't have the skills to build something before then you don't have the skills to verify something is correct after Clicking around a finished UI is not verifying
  - embedding-shape 4mo ago
    > That's pretty different from "didn't have the time/money/motivation to" Maybe start at the first message here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553444 I still don't have the skill/knowledge to build cross-platform native applications the way I'm doing it with an agent now. I am still able to verify it's correct. How is that possible if what you say is correct? > Clicking around a finished UI is not verifying Definitively a part of it, if you care about having mouse interactions and having graphical UIs.
rpdillon 4mo ago
Verifying is harder than building for some problems, but not all. I think part of the trick of using AI is applying it where verification is easy.
sameerds 4mo ago
> If you weren't able to build it before then you aren't able to properly verify it GP said "couldn't dream of building". To make an analogy, I wouldn't dream of building a house if I had to do every bit of brick-laying myself. But with others doing what I can't do, I can indeed dream of building a house and I do know how to verify that the house was built to satisfy my dream.

WarmWash 4mo ago

There was a period where computer+grandmaster was the ultimate winning force in chess. It lasted a few years before it was just computer.

thrixton 4mo ago

Absolutely. Things which used to take me a week to grind through, finding edge cases, trial and error, researching online, now takes an afternoon directing an agent and verifying the solution. For a generalist, it's a huge force multiplier.

b112 4mo ago
Wonderful now. In the future, there will be no more generalists with your capabilities. At all. No one will ever develop the skill. We're at the end of our career's lifetime. We're like the horse watching more and more cars appearing. Within a generation, the coding languages we use today will all vanish, to be replaced with direct to metal methods, assembly, etc. The only reason C exists, is for humans. PHP, rust, python is for humans. There will be no more compilers. No more human-readable languages. No more scripting with readable code. No more open or closed source. Imagine taking every aspect of computing which is designed for humans to understand, and removing it, because it's redundant. Now once removed, and once humans no longer understand on their own, imagine trying to build something independently? Imagine trying to bootstrap modern compute, without all the layers which came before? My point is that soon, perhaps 20 years, most humans will be incapable of coding, developing, or working with compute in any way outside of an end-user role. Even those previously skilled, will now be looking at an entire kernel written in assembly. And that's before new CPUs appear, with new assembly. New assembly, once again, not designed by or for humans to understand. And yes, current assembly is designed that way. We are not simply looking at a bit of help here. We're looking at the entire end of every single computing job, ever. We're looking at the complete loss of control, of something which is the underpinning of our entire society. Every aspect of everything we have, runs on a chip now. Personal transport, everything in health care, everything in resource extraction, everything harvesting food through to delivery to table, all of it involves some aspect of compute. And we soon will not comprehend nor create that underlying aspect of society. I dunno. It all seems like the answer to the fermi paradox.