11 ms·
Andrew Ng: Building Faster with AI [video]
- bgwalter 1y ago[flagged]
- whattheheckheck 1y agoHe literally builds companies and hires ceos to run them Google it
- melenaboija 1y ago> He literally builds companies Like with actual mortar, brick by brick?
- reactordev 1y agoHe doesn’t have to at this point, he just throws money at younger ones that will build it. I want an Andrew Ng Agent.
- Bluestein 1y ago... in essence, an "A-Ngent".- (I'll see myself out ...)
- arkmm 1y agoNot affiliated, but someone's already working on that for you: https://www.realavatar.ai/ https://www.realavatar.ai/
- reactordev 1y agoI'm serious, the man's a genius...
- hoegarden 1y agoBaidu.
- bgwalter 1y agoThe video's description is about building startups through vibe coding, not using "AI" like self-driving or chatbots in startups. Additionally, Baidu wasn't a startup when he joined in 2014.
- hoegarden 1y agoNg built baidu's AI department and began their start in various sectors with actual AI system design, so yes, he isn't a failed startup entrepreneur like any vibe startup maker who already wants to stop and give advice. Maybe you can help me hire a vibe coder with 10 years experience?
- bgwalter 1y agoHe built it without LLMs in 2014 and now he is selling LLMs for coding to the young. That is the entire point of this subthread.
- hoegarden 1y agoRight.. He's just a giant, not a midget with a step ladder. But I do question why anyone who played a significant role in the foundation of the current AI generation would teach an obvious new Zuckerberg generation who will apparently think they are the start of everything if they get a style working in the prompt. If not for 3 people in 2012, I find it highly unlikely a venture like OpenAI could have occurred and without Ng in particular I wouldn't be surprised if the field would have been missing a few technical pieces as well as the hire-able engineers.
- crystal_revenge 1y agoA good chunk of Ng's work these days seems to be around AI Fund [0] which he explicitly mentioned in the video, in the first 5 seconds, involves co-founding these startups and being in the weeds with the initial development. Additionally, he does engage pretty closely with the teams behind the content of his deeplearning.ai lectures and does make sure he has a deep understanding of the products these companies are highlighting. He certainly is a businessman, but that doesn't exlcudethe possibility that he remains highly knowledgeable about this space.
- dcreater 1y agoHe's lost credibility in my eyes given that his courses essentially have a pay to play model for startups like langchain
- crystal_revenge 1y agoExcept they aren't pay to play unless you consider doing the work for the course the "payment". There's certainly an exchange since there is a lot of work involved, but DLAI provides a team to help design, structure and polish the course and then the team creating the course does the majority of the work creating the content, but there's no financial exchange. The DLAI team is also pretty good about ensuring the content covers a topic not a product in general.
- dcreater 1y agoThe content is a repackage of previously existing, publicly available notebooks, docs, YouTube videos. I wouldnt be surprised if the repackaging was done by AI.
- raincole 1y agoCourses are not academic journals, dude. They're supposed to be teaching you existing knowledge.
- crystal_revenge 1y ago
- mrbonner 1y agoYou become a millionaire by selling books (courses) of how to become millionaire to others.
- rubslopes 1y agoRelevant video https://youtu.be/CWMAOzH20mY?si=Kr8vp1vo_PpRNJ8-&utm_source=MTQxZ https://youtu.be/CWMAOzH20mY?si=Kr8vp1vo_PpRNJ8-&utm_source=...
- Koshcheiushko 1y agoThanks
- DataDaemon 1y agowhen there is a gold rush, just sell courses how to mine gold
- azan_ 1y agoHe sold courses (great ones!) long before there was AI-gold rush. He's one of the OG players in online education and I think he deserves praise, not blame for that.
- w10-1 1y agoNot sure why this has drawn silence and attacks - whence the animus to Ng? His high-level assessments seem accurate, he's a reasonable champion of AI, and he speaks credibly based on advising many companies. What am I missing? (He does fall on the side of open models (as input factors): is that the threat?) He argues that landscape is changing (at least quarterly), and that services are (best) replaceable (often week-to-week) because models change, but that orchestration is harder to replace, and that there are relatively few orchestration platforms. So: what platforms are available? Are there other HN posts that assess the current state of AI orchestration? (What's the AI-orchestration acronym? not PAAS but AIOPAAS? AOP? (since aspect-oriented programming is history))
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- handfuloflight 1y agoWe've defined agents. Let's now define orchestration.
- ramraj07 1y agoBold claim. I am not convinced anyone's done a good job defining agents and if they did 99% of the population has a different interpretation.
- handfuloflight 1y agoOkay. We've tried to define agents. Now let's try to define orchestration.
- pchristensen 1y agoI have had reservation about Ng from a lot of his past hype, but I thought this talk was extremely practical and tactical. I recommend watching it before passing judgement.
- croes 1y agoI haven’t watched the video yet, but title does sound like quantity over quality. Why faster and not better with AI?
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoI think this is an interesting question, and I’d like to genuinely attempt an answer. I essentially think this is because people prefer to optimize what they can measure. It is hard to measure the quality of work. People have subjective opinions, the size of opportunities can be different, etc, making quality hard to pin down. It is much easier to measure the time required for each iteration on a concept. Additionally, I think it is generally believed that a project with more iterations tends to have higher quality than a project with less, even putting aside the concern about measuring quality itself. Therefore, we put aside the discussion of quality (which we’d really like to improve), and instead make the claim that we can actually measure (time to do something), with the strong implication that this _also_ will tend to increase quality.
- croes 1y agoI think speed isn’t our problem. Most of the time the problem it‘s quality but everyone only seems eager to ship as fast as possible. Move fast and break things already happened and now we are adding more speed. „Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Or for the more sophisticated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physicists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physicists Energy consumption and data protection were a thing and then came AI and all of a sudden it doesn’t matter anymore. Between all the good things people create with AI I see a lot more useless or even harmful things. Scams and fake news get better and harder to distinguish to a point where reality doesn’t matter anymore.
- markerz 1y agoI think quality takes time and refinement which is not something that LLMs have solved very well today. They are very okay at it, except for very specific targeted refinements (Grammerly, SQL editors). However, they are excellent at building from 0->1, and the video is suggesting that this is perfect for startups. In the context of startups, faster is better.
- androng 1y agohttps://toolong.link/v?w=RNJCfif1dPY&l=en https://toolong.link/v?w=RNJCfif1dPY&l=en
- Keyframe 1y agostrong MLM energy vibe in that talk.
- imranq 1y agoMy two takeaways is you build 1) Having a precise vision of what you want to achieve 2) Being able to control / steer AI towards that vision Teams that can do both of these things, especially #1 will move much faster. Even if they are wrong its better than vague ideas that get applause but not customers
- void-star 1y agoYes this! The observation that being specific versus general in the problems you want to solve is a better start-up plan is true for all startups ever, not just ones that use LLMs to solve them. Anecdotal/personal startup experiences support this strongly and I read enough on here to know that I am not alone…
- techpineapple 1y agoWhat's the balance between being specific in a way that's positive and allows you to solve good problems, and not getting pigeonhold and not being able to pivot? I wonder if companies who pivot are the norm or if you just here of the most popular cases.
- enos_feedler 1y agoAre you a student of Robert Fritz? He says this exactly. The only two things you need is 1) a vision and 2) ability to see present reality clearly. Beyond this it’s all about the skill to nudge a creation towards the vision without being prescribed to a process. The art is knowing when to just use the status quo tool or try something new at any point during the nudging is key. Based on his teachings I can easily see vibe coding fitting into creation process quite easily. Where it becomes tricky is “seeing current reality clearly”. If you have been vibe coding for two weeks and perhaps a weak programmer or worse no technical ability, can you actually see reality at that point? Probably not. It requires understanding the software structure. Maybe. Its all up in the air right now. But I truly believe that LLMs make software creation more like creating art.
- fjjckj 1y ago[flagged]
- gsbsbdbdbdbdb 1y ago[flagged]
- blobgen 1y ago[dead]
- skipants 1y agoI’m 20 minutes into the video and it does seem mostly basic and agreeable. Two arguments from Ng that really stuck out that is really tripping my skepticism alarm are: 1) He mentions how fast prototyping has begun because generating a simple app has become easier with AI. This, to me, has always been quick and never the bottleneck for any company I’ve been at, including startups. Validating an idea was simple enough via wireframing. I can maybe see it for selling an idea where you need some amount of fidelity yo impress potential investors… but I would hope places like YC can see the tech behind the idea without seeing the tech itself. Or at least can ignore low fidelity if a prototype shows the meat of the product. 2) Ng talks about how everyone in his company codes, from the front desk to the executives. The “everyone should code” idea has been done and shown to fail for the past 15 years. In fact I’ve seen it be more damaging than helpful because it gave people false confidence that they could tell engineers how to do their job rather than a more empathetic understanding.
- apwell23 1y agoeven prototyping hasn't become "fast" because you cannot purely vibecode even a prototype.
- marcosdumay 1y agoOn point 1, it's worse than that. Adding detail and veracity to a prototype is well known to bring negative value. Prototypes must be exactly a sketchy as the ideas they represent, otherwise they mislead people into thinking the software is built and your ideas can't be changed.
- macNchz 1y agoI’ve always said this as well, having done lots and lots of early stage building and prototyping, and suffering plenty of proto-duction foibles, however my view has shifted on this a lot in the last year or so. With current models I’m able to throw together fully working web app prototypes so quickly and iterate often-sweeping UI and architectural changes so readily that I’m finding it has changed my whole workflow. The idea of trying to keep things low-fidelity at the start is predicated on the understanding that changes later in the process are much more difficult or expensive, which I think is increasingly no longer the case in many circumstances. Having a completely working prototype and then totally changing how it works in just a few sentences is really quite something. The key to sustainability in this pattern, in my opinion, is not letting the AI dictate project structure or get too far ahead of your own understanding/oversight of the general architecture. That’s a balancing act to be sure, since purely vibe-coding is awfully tempting, but it’s still far too easy to wind up with a big ball of wax that neither human nor AI can further improve.
- nikolayasdf123 1y agonot a single word about overwhelming replacement of humans with AI. nothing about countless jobs lost. nothing about ever increasing competition and rat-race. (speaking of software, but applies to all industries). his rose-glasses view is somewhere in between optimism-in-denial to straight-up lunacy. if this is the leader(s) we have been following, this should be a wake up call.
- lbrito 1y agoHow dare you insinuate that there might be negatives in a new technology. Outrageous. AI good.
- GBF1GBF1 1y ago[flagged]
- mehulashah 1y agoThis talk is deceptively simple. The most sage advice that founders routinely forget is what concrete idea are you going to implement and why do you think it will work? There has be a way to invalidate your idea and as a corollary you must have the focus to collect the data and properly invalidate it.
- nextworddev 1y agoHey Mehul, crossed paths with you at AWS. Good to see you are doing your own thing now. We could connect sometime
- mehulashah 1y agoHappy to. DM me.
- cachecrab 1y ago1 product manager to 0.5 engineers for a project? That seems... off.
- sensanaty 1y ago> 1 product manager to 0.5 engineers I would love to have access to whatever this guy is smoking, cause that is some grade-A mind rotted insanity right there. I can count on half of 1 hand the number of good PMs I've had trough my career who weren't a net negative on the projects/companies, and even they most definitely cannot build jackshit by throwing a bunch of LLM-hallucinated crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. But sure, the devs are the ones that are going to be replaced by the clueless middle managers who only exist to waste everyone's time.
- blurbleblurble 1y agoOr is it the other way around? Project managers who can't actually competently execute won't be able to hang? In the end, what if technically sharp designers and well rounded developers actually end up pushing out incompetent managers? Could be wishful thinking but you never know.
- blurbleblurble 1y agoCase in point: https://old.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1lw9r9h/i_messed_up_my_google_pm_vibe_coding_interview/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1lw9r9h/... (the comments are especially revealing)
- dimal 1y agoThat is completely bizarre. I’ve been wondering what’s happening to programmer interviews now that AI makes all the standard formats pointless. I never imagined that they would ADD coding to the process for other roles. Having PMs vibe coding in an interview? That’s idiotic.
- sensanaty 1y agoWe've recently come under new management, and the interview process for ICs has changed about a week ago and is similarly absurd to me. For the frontend role, we have candidates awkwardly read through an AI-generated document that is split up extremely awkwardly and in general has that AI tone to it which makes it hard to read through because it's extremely generic, non-specific and devoid of any useful details or indeed thought put into it. The new head of engineering also wants to be a part of every single one of these, and also wants FOUR OTHER PEOPLE in the interview alongside him. Did I mention already that they have to read through a 6-page document that they have never seen or been informed about live in front of 5 people, including their future manager? In the interview itself, the head of engineering then asks the candidates to use Cursor (and yes, specifically cursor and only cursor, the guy is fucking obsessed with cursor to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he's somehow getting paid to shove it everywhere) as much as they possibly can. He refuses to answer their questions should they have any, and tells them to direct all questions to Cursor instead. There was one person who realized very early on that what we're basically asking for is about as simple of a thing as you can possibly imagine, basically a textarea, a button and a list that is dynamically generated (just phrased in the most obtuse possible way, for some reason). He completed this task manually with no Cursor in maybe 5 minutes, 15 if you count the 10 minutes to read through the monstrosity of an AI-generated task. He got points docked by our head of engineering for "Not using AI properly and inefficiently spending time manually coding" which is hilarious because literally nobody who relied on Cursor during the interview got even close to where this guy got. It has so far been a very predictable disaster, with some extremely talented and promising people sending us emails afterwards to the effect of "This has been the worst interview experience of my life, and I don't care how I did, I'm withdrawing my candidacy. As an official GDPR request, please delete everything and anything you might have on me". Head of engineering is steadfast though, and has called pretty much everyone we've interviewed so far "A bad apple, not a great culture fit because of lack of enthusiasm for AI tooling". There is absolutely no logic to anything currently happening. It is simply one of the most massive hype bubbles in human history, and VCs, C-levels, middle and upper management are DESPERATE for the marketing hype to be seen as the reality and for the untold billions poured into these systems to be the successes they were initially sold as. There's no humility here, there's no thought being put into any of it, it's extremely cult-like and people are just trying any random idiotic idea that crosses their mind because they have a sycophantic black box that will shower them in infinite praise for every idea they lazily shit out onto the text input area of their favorite LLM tool. They are DESPERATE to fire the expensive, cocky engineers who think they're irreplaceable, and god damn it if they won't burn the entire world down for the chance to be proven right.