William_BB

6 ms·

1.
by William_BB 2mo ago
> It's better then incompetents code, worse then a motivated average dev... That's well put. > But good enough hence the real question is value aka time& money invested/quality. There's time invested SO FAR and
2.
by William_BB 2mo ago
> I think "absolute crap but still useful to me" is a pretty high value and not worth neglecting If I extrapolate this example to my professional life, this code now manages millions of dollars, a single mistake can wipe it all
3.
by William_BB 2mo ago
AI is great at reducing the search space and using human-like reasoning (in a brute-force way) to carry out the brute-force search. I'm not surprised by this result. This is exactly what AI should excel at, with human guidance.
4.
by William_BB 2mo ago
There's a big difference between one shotting a counterexample using AI and using AI to find a counter-example by brute-force. Both are impressive, of course, but they're hardly comparable.
5.
by William_BB 2mo ago
> has fewer bugs who claimed that? Are you suggesting that the rewrite did not introduce any new bugs? The correct answer is, by the way, that no one knows since it's millions of lines of code no one has properly read. > smaller,
6.
by William_BB 2mo ago
It's not even about requirements. It's about responsibility. Someone has to take responsibility for the code and the product. Someone has to hotfix a bug that's costing millions of dollars an hour and someone has to be blamed
7.
by William_BB 2mo ago
Ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem? This is basically what LLMs do on really hard tasks. Prompt it a million times on a really hard problem and it might output the correct answer once.
8.
by William_BB 2mo ago
People will downvote you because this comment is "not appropriate" for HN, but there were countless conversations on HN about how important these benchmarks are. I am literally LOLing at HN right now
9.
by William_BB 2mo ago
> AI is also scarily good at writing tests :-) I hope you read those tests before claiming it's "scary good"
10.
by William_BB 3mo ago
> This is a forum filled with experts Half of HN commentators probably work on basic CRUD. Armchair experts, maybe.
11.
by William_BB 4mo ago
This is such a bad take. I'm impressed how often this gets parroted online. Next time, please check how many Poles left Poland for western EU since they joined.
12.
by William_BB 5mo ago
yeah. In the future when? 2, 3, 5 years from now on? Do you think current LLMs don't get confused by shitty code? That code they're writing now will need fixing tomorrow, not 5 years later.
13.
by William_BB 5mo ago
I have the same feeling ever since his infamous LLM OS post
14.
by William_BB 5mo ago
> I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually. Most engineers realize that there's currently more tech debt being created
15.
by William_BB 5mo ago
> I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually. I feel sorry for whoever has to work on that codebase. This is the literal defi
16.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Totally agreed, this has been and will continue to be a problem for all existing models. > Like are programmers and engineers using LLMs completely differently than I'm doing No, but the complexity of the problem matters. Lots of en
17.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Good luck arguing with SWE benchmark purists
18.
by William_BB 5mo ago
> what's needed is knowledge of solution techniques That's definitely in the training data
19.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Ah right! Reminds me of AGI by 2025 :D
20.
by William_BB 5mo ago
> The idea that code is something sacred and only devs can somehow do it is dying, and I personally love it, as I am watching it enable so many of my friends and family who have no idea how to code. People on HN are seriously delusional.
21.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Yeah, good luck trusting the output!
22.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Yeah, that's indeed a hot take. I am curious what kind of code you write for a living to have an opinion like this.
23.
by William_BB 5mo ago
> well it actually implemented a normalization pipeline and a tax computing engine which then did the taxes, but close enough You can't seriously believe laymen will try to implement their own tax calculators.
24.
by William_BB 5mo ago
Are you one of those naive people that still take these coding benchmarks seriously?
25.
by William_BB 5mo ago
If you randomly sample letters from the alphabet and those letters make up actual words, then actual sentences. Did you think about it? Probably not
26.
by William_BB 5mo ago
You should read the article you posted before you write a comment. Hint: check P_F=0 in tables 2, 3 and 4. "Factored" is doing a lot of lifting here and is borderline deceptive. Plenty of researchers have long ago pointed out that
27.
by William_BB 6mo ago
To me, Github has always seemed well positioned to be a one-stop solution for software development: code, CI/CD, documentation, ticket tracking, project management etc. Could anyone explain where they failed? I keep hearing that Github
28.
by William_BB 7mo ago
If this happens to software development, this will happen to most mental jobs.
29.
by William_BB 7mo ago
CRUD
30.
by William_BB 7mo ago
(Geopolitical) prediction markets almost always tend to overreact. This is expected from retail, so I'm not sure about the signal.

More ›