1. How do you organize your architecture files so that agents know where to find and update architectural info? E.g. everything in one big file, or sharded per module/subsystem with an AGENTS.md for discoverability, or something else?

2. What gets templated? What do your template files contain or look like?

3. How do you get the LLMs to actually slot something into the right place? E.g. a problem I repeatedly run into is the LLM weakening abstraction boundaries. I have to explicitly tell it things such as "No, this is obviously a UI-specific endpoint that belongs on the BFF rather than on the business logic focused backend API." Of course it gets better as I add more examples and rules each time I catch something dumb, but it sounds like you're avoiding this problem altogether with good architecture. How are you doing that?

4. It sounds like you have some sort of workflow that is standardized yet still generalizable enough to cover the generic case of new feature development on the system. How is that possible? What can you share about this flow?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46881388

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Sure, but the specific context of this conversation are the human roles (taxi driver, friend, etc.) that this software is replacing. Ergo, when judging software as a human replacement, it should be compared to how well humans fill those traditionally human roles.

> And we don't have a choice not to interact with LLMs because apparently we decided that these things are going to be integrated into every aspect of our lives whether we like it or not.

Fair point.

> And yes, in that inevitable future the fact that every piece of technology is a sociopathic P-zombie designed to hack people's brain stems and manipulate their emotions and reasoning in the most primal way possible is a problem.

Fair point again. Thanks for helping me gain a wider perspective.

However, I don't see it as inevitable that this becomes a serious large-scale problem. In my experience, current GPT 5.1 has already become a lot less cloyingly sycophantic than Claude is. If enough people hate sycophancy, it's quite possible that LLM providers are incentivized to continue improving on this front.

> We tend not to accept that kind of behavior in other people

Do we really? Maybe not third party bystanders reacting negatively to cult leaders, but the cult followers themselves certainly don't feel that way. If a person freely chooses to seek out and associate with another person, is anyone else supposed to be responsible for their adult decisions?

That's fair! However, I think PSAs on the dangers of AI usage are very different in reach and scope from legally making LLM providers responsible for the AI usage of their users, which is what I understood jsrozner to be saying.

There are absolutely plenty of people who encourage others' flat earth delusions by default, it's just a question of how receptive you are to them.

> There is no good that comes from having all of your perspective distortions validated as facts. They turn into outright delusions without external grounding.

Again, that sounds like a people problem. Dictators infamously fall into this trap too.

Why are we holding LLMs to a higher standard than humans? If you don't like an LLM, then don't interact with it, just as you wouldn't interact with a human you dislike. If others are okay with having their egos stroked and their delusions encouraged and validated, that's their prerogative.

What if it were an unlicensed human encouraging someone else's delusions? I would think that's the real basis of comparison, because these LLMs are clearly not licensed therapists, and we can see from the real world how entire flat earth communities have formed from reinforcing each others' delusions.

Automation makes things easier and more efficient, and that includes making it easier and more efficient for people to dig their own rabbit holes. I don't see why LLM providers are to blame for someone's lack of epistemological hygiene.

Also, there are a lot of people who are lonely and for whatever reasons cannot get their social or emotional needs met in this modern age. Paying for an expensive psychiatrist isn't going to give them the friendship sensations they're craving. If AI is better at meeting human needs than actual humans are, why let perfect be the enemy of good?

> if waymo is better than the average driver, but still gets into an accident, who should be held accountable?

Waymo of course -- but Waymo also shouldn't be financially punished any harder than humans would be for equivalent honest mistakes. If Waymo truly is much safer than the average driver (which it certainly appears to be), then the amortized costs of its at-fault payouts should be way lower than the auto insurance costs of hiring out an equivalent number of human Uber drivers.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45821136

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45303902

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45054433

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44879862

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461041

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44087384

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

A considerable amount of engineering was needed to maintain a clean signal inside the tube. Large transducers were used to generate a very tight beam of sound that would not touch the walls of the tube, and care had to be taken to eliminate reflections from the far end of the tubes. The tightness of the beam then required considerable tuning to make sure that both transducers were pointed directly at each other. Since the speed of sound changes with temperature, the tubes were heated in large ovens to keep them at a precise temperature. Other systems instead adjusted the computer clock rate according to the ambient temperature to achieve the same effect."

It is really interesting to me to see such high-tech solutions to problems that no longer even exist. A top-of-the-line memory module from the 40's with exciting carefully engineered features is completely outclassed by a cheap modern memory card. We live in a mundane age of science fiction.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43931413

Points: 2

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43713254

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43691020

Points: 284

# Comments: 122

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43541699

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43249915

Points: 2

# Comments: 0