Comment by jeswin
19 days ago
I find it amusing that people (even here on HN) are expecting a brand new tool (among the most complex ever) to perform adequetely right off the bat. It will require a period of refinement, just as any other tool or process.
Would you buy a car that's been thrown together by a immature production and testing system with demonstrable and significant flaws, and just keep bringing it back to the dealership for refinements and the fixing of defects when you discover them? Assuming it doesn't kill you first?
These tools should be locked away in an R&D environment until sufficiently perfected.
MVP means 'ship with solid, tested basic features', not 'Ship with bugs and fix in production'.
People have grown to expect at least adequate performance from products that cost up to 39 dollars a month (* additional costs) per user. In the past you would have called this a tech demo at best.
Where are the expectations coming from? The major labs continually claim that these models are now PhD level, whatever that even means.
this entire thread is very reddit-y
this stuff works. it takes effort and learning. it’s not going to magically solve high-complexity tasks (or even low-complexity ones) without investment. having people use it, learn how it works, and improve the systems is the right approach
a lot of armchair engineers in here
People, specifically managers and C-levels, are being sold on this crap on the idea that it can replace people now, today as-is. Billions upon billions of dollars are being shoved in indiscriminately, toothbrushes are coming with "AI" slapped on somehow from how insane the hype bubble is.
And here we have many examples from the biggest bullshit pushers in the whole market of their state of the art tool being hilariously useless in trivial cases. These PRs are about as simple as you can get without it being a typo fix, and we're all seeing it actively bullshit and straight up contradict itself many times, just as anyone who's ever used LLMs would tell you happens all the time.
The supposed magic, omnipotent tool that is AI apparently can't even write test scaffolding without a human telling it exactly what it has to do, yet we're supposed to be excited about this crap? If I saw a PR like this at work, I'd be going straight to my manager to have whoever dared push this kind of garbage reprimanded on the spot, except not even interns are this incompetent and annoying to work with.
it’s not magic. it can make meaningful contributions (if you actually invest in learning the tools + best practices for using them)
you’re taking an anecdote and blowing it out of proportion to fit your preformed opinion. yes, when you start with the tool and do literally no work it makes bad PRs. yes, it’s early and experimental. that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work (I have plenty of anecdotes that it does!)
the truth lies in between and the mob mentality it’s magic or complete bullshit doesn’t help. I’d love to come to a thread like this and actually hear about real experiences from smart people using these kind of tools, but instead we get this bullshit
3 replies →
Literally you're in a site where we are anything but armchair. We have years of experience. You're using your ad hominems wrong. Save them for a football thread and come up with actual arguments next time.
its more that the AI-first approach can be frustrating for senior devs to have to deal with. This post is an example of that. We're empathising with the code reviewers.
"brand new"? really? we've had these slop bots for years now. what's with all the fanboys pretending it was just released this month or something. it's not brand new. it's old and failing and executives who bet billions are now dismantling their engineering capabilities to try to make something out of those burned billions. claiming it's brand new is just silly.
As the saying goes, It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
AI is aimed at eliminating the jobs of most of HN so it's understandable that HN doesn't want AI to succeed at its goal.
flipping your argument:
It is difficult for ceo/management to understand that the ai tools dont work when their salary depends on them working since they have invested billions into it.