6 ms·

It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever, but humans plus software is going to better than either alone for a long time.

by gerad 1y ago

vFunct 1y ago
No guarantee that will happen. LLMs are still statistically based. It's not going to give you edgier ideas, like filling a glass of wine to the rim. Use them for the 90% of your repetitive uncreative work. The last 10% is up to you.
- skydhash 1y ago
  The pain of that 90% work is how you get libraries and framework. Imagine having many different implementation of sorting algorithms inside your codebase.
  - vFunct 1y ago
    OK now we have to spend time figuring out the framework. It's why people say just write plain Javascript, for example.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      Is it? Or is it because the framework are not suitable for the project?
apwell23 1y ago
its not like chess
kelseydh 1y ago
The time where humans + computers in chess were better than just computers was not a long time. That era ended well over a decade ago. Might have been true for only 3-5 years.
- qsort 1y ago
  Unrelated to the broader discussion, but that's an artifact of the time control. Humans add nothing to Stockfish in a 90+30 game, but correspondence chess, for instance, is played with modern engines and still has competitive interest.
  - dwohnitmok 1y ago
    It is not clear to me whether human input really matters in correspondence chess at this point either. I mused about this several years ago and still haven't really gotten a clear answer one way or the other. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33022581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33022581
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
LandR 1y ago
What do you mean? Chess engines are incredibly far ahead of humans right now. Even a moderately powered machine running stockfish will destroy human super gms. Sorry, after reading replies to this post i think I've misunderstood what you meant :)
- seadan83 1y ago
  The phrasing was perhaps a bit odd. For a while, humans were better at Chess, until they weren't. OP is hypothesizing it will be a similar situation for programming. To boot, it was hard to believe for a long time that computers would ever be better than a humans at chess.
- hollerith 1y ago
  I think he knows that. There was a period from the early 1950s (when people first started writing chess-playing software) to 1997 when humans were better at chess than computers were, and I think he is saying that we are still in the analogous period for the skill of programming. But he should've know that people would jump at the opportunity to contradict him and should've written his comment so as not to admit such an easily-contradictable interpretation.
  - LandR 1y ago
    Yes, amended my post. I understand what he was saying now. Thanks. Wasn't trying to just be contradictory or arsey
seadan83 1y ago
> It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever This is not an obviously true statement. There needs to be proof that there are no limiting factors that are computationally impossible to overcome. It's like watching a growing child, grow from 3 feet to 4 feet, and then saying "soon, this child will be the tallest person alive."
- overfeed 1y ago
  One of my favourite XKCD comics is about extrapolation https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
- abalashov 1y ago
  With these "AGI by 2027" claims, it's not enough to say that the child will be the tallest person alive. They are saying the child will be the tallest structure on the planet.
quantadev 1y ago
Your information is quite badly out of date. AI can now beat humans at not only chess but 99% of all intellectual exercises.

It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever, but humans plus software is going to better than either alone for a long time.

by gerad 1y ago

It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever, but humans plus software is going to better than either alone for a long time.

vFunct 1y ago

No guarantee that will happen. LLMs are still statistically based. It's not going to give you edgier ideas, like filling a glass of wine to the rim. Use them for the 90% of your repetitive uncreative work. The last 10% is up to you.

skydhash 1y ago
The pain of that 90% work is how you get libraries and framework. Imagine having many different implementation of sorting algorithms inside your codebase.
- vFunct 1y ago
  OK now we have to spend time figuring out the framework. It's why people say just write plain Javascript, for example.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    Is it? Or is it because the framework are not suitable for the project?

apwell23 1y ago

its not like chess

kelseydh 1y ago

The time where humans + computers in chess were better than just computers was not a long time. That era ended well over a decade ago. Might have been true for only 3-5 years.

qsort 1y ago
Unrelated to the broader discussion, but that's an artifact of the time control. Humans add nothing to Stockfish in a 90+30 game, but correspondence chess, for instance, is played with modern engines and still has competitive interest.
- dwohnitmok 1y ago
  It is not clear to me whether human input really matters in correspondence chess at this point either. I mused about this several years ago and still haven't really gotten a clear answer one way or the other. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33022581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33022581

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

LandR 1y ago

What do you mean? Chess engines are incredibly far ahead of humans right now. Even a moderately powered machine running stockfish will destroy human super gms. Sorry, after reading replies to this post i think I've misunderstood what you meant :)

seadan83 1y ago
The phrasing was perhaps a bit odd. For a while, humans were better at Chess, until they weren't. OP is hypothesizing it will be a similar situation for programming. To boot, it was hard to believe for a long time that computers would ever be better than a humans at chess.
hollerith 1y ago
I think he knows that. There was a period from the early 1950s (when people first started writing chess-playing software) to 1997 when humans were better at chess than computers were, and I think he is saying that we are still in the analogous period for the skill of programming. But he should've know that people would jump at the opportunity to contradict him and should've written his comment so as not to admit such an easily-contradictable interpretation.
- LandR 1y ago
  Yes, amended my post. I understand what he was saying now. Thanks. Wasn't trying to just be contradictory or arsey

seadan83 1y ago

> It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever This is not an obviously true statement. There needs to be proof that there are no limiting factors that are computationally impossible to overcome. It's like watching a growing child, grow from 3 feet to 4 feet, and then saying "soon, this child will be the tallest person alive."

overfeed 1y ago
One of my favourite XKCD comics is about extrapolation https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
abalashov 1y ago
With these "AGI by 2027" claims, it's not enough to say that the child will be the tallest person alive. They are saying the child will be the tallest structure on the planet.

quantadev 1y ago

Your information is quite badly out of date. AI can now beat humans at not only chess but 99% of all intellectual exercises.