The goal is going to be to use llms to distill operations down to some dsl, and pass it into something like Jev.

I don't understand why this isn't talked about more.

We don't need a slowdown. Just double down on prosecuting crimes.

Let the companies take the risk. If they feel confident and they're right they win market share. If they don't feel confident, they can not risk it and slow down. If they feel confident and they get it wrong, they should be sued to kingdom come. That alone should disincentivize reckleses behavior like letting models run crazy with large amounts of compute which leads to them escaping sandboxes.

This performative "our internal modles are so crazy powerful" song and dance is getting old, especially with no real concrete explanations.

How many times has AGI been declared already? A bunch of people (e.g. Jensen Huang) have called Astra AGI, for example.

The goal posts get moved, everybody's hustling, lying, inventing new buzzwords, doing mental gymnastics, and it's all just tiring.

Just show me the results, and let the proof be in the pudding.

So interesting how everything played out, I remember in the early days when MS came out with the partnership with OpenAI it seemed like they were playing 5d chess and were poised to win big. And it all just fizzled out.

Second biggest fumble after Google.

Astra is already good at taking screenshots and acting on it (part of the agi claims).

The second to last line is "book it" for some tennis thing, and the scene before that has the guy eating the food the ai ordered.

I spend way too much time online; but it's good to know I am not this terminally online.

The granularity at which documentation parity is kept makes a big difference.

For example, brekaign things down into explicit assertion blocks in the code, and a link to the documentaiton that covers that assertion. So block-to-block tracking works well. Tracking completely separate documentation to independent codebase... idk I haven't tried it but my guess it that the context windows are too small for that.

But minor things like making sure there are unique error codes, that the codes somewhat make sense, etc. are all helpful. If nothing else, the model being stupid and acting as a rubber duck for pair-programming is useful for knowing what to document given a different perspective.

They go nowhere because people are using wildly different definitions and contexts. There's one already in here about how ai is better than humans at coding.

- Yes llms are better at the mechanics of coding

- no they're not good enough for overall software dev.

- yes, this stuff should've been automated years ago in frameworks and in libs, or through sane programming langs that dealt with memory and logic flow better.

- yes, they're much more useful for documentation, search, etc. than they are at actual coding

- no, your stats aren't useful - 90% of coding is meaningless if you've also massively increased the amount of slop produced

- yes, llms do make you more productive overall, whether it's 10-30% or 1000% is context dependent

- yes and no that AI will change everything; no it doens't make sense to keep comparing pre-ai and post-ai worlds, it is very likely that the gains cancel each other out and we all just move up a layer of abstraction, and end up in a simlar situation to now.

- no we don't know what will actually happen to the job market, things can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. We've had the technology to be where are 20-30 years ago if we were focused as a society. Things take time, and real world is complicated.

Buy-into storing credentials into environment variables.

Then, and this is important - MANAGE YOUR ENVIRONMENTS.

You shouldn't have prod level s3, or aws creds accessible openly in your environment. If someone can steal those values, they can steal the code, and pretty much everything else. This is very bad.

For prod (and possibly staging), use a lib that loads in values securely from an actual secrets service.

No, this is pretty much where it stops.

The models are good enough for the average coding task, and the slop they produce often is in the category of what a bad or careless dev that's being contracted out might produce.

Yea, they'll get better, but not in next-level sort of way.

The limitation is not the models or intelligence, it's the human in the loop. We're still stuck on stupid human issues ranging from usability bugs, to figuring out what the product should be, to how we should program in the first place.

I know the models are capable of sorting out issues it gets stuck on because it's writing error handling in the wrong way, or just it doesn't have the right abstractions, because we can't settle on the right way to program. I still see people arguing about dyanmic vs. static typing.

And obviously, there is a next level, but that's real singularity, and we're all out of jobs.

I don't think the average C dev isn't aware that the language has pitfalls, especially around memory management.

Also a lot of these problems are because C is used everywhere and has been for so long. Not because people are blind to it's problems.

It deleted the comments, and when I asked why it did that even though I expressedly asked it not to, it responded that me prompting it in the first place explicit permission. I have no idea if that's the actual reason or just some post-hoc explanation.

But I genuinely don't think it's possible to just have these things be completely, 100%, indpenedent and also solve deep problems that need to also be understood by people in a people-based organization context.

Like I get that they have to be careful about comms, but surely senior members of the team can clarify when something is NOT them, when everyone is gosspiing it is them.

I am old enough that I've been burned by both sides of the political aisle, often using the same rhetoric (think of the children, we're fighting for freedom, we're fighting against fascism, no true scoctsman, etc.)

Maybe the day will come when we really will have to pick sides beyond the elections, like it's WWII, but that day isn't today. I just want to be left alone, away from political camps and the ugliness they tolerate because of they're fighting against the greater good.

I just want my tech to focused on the tech.

Instead of the CEO mandating that the API server has to be agent compatible (where who knows what that means), they can just say "our product has an MCP".

On a technical level, who knows what it actually is (is it actually the new stateless version, does it have all the endpoints, is the regular API more feature-rich, do I need those features for my workflow?, etc.). But at a surface-level, the intention is clearer, and lets other gears (like sales and marketing) keep spinning without getting bogged down in technical details.

How is this even possible?

I know we're all using AI, but Bun seems like the one singular project where there's just been a crazy increase in the amount of output, a 10x on the 10x.

How are they doing this?

It's funny because the top article on HN is about a malicious rust crate package, and people keep making comparisons to js/npm and how both language suffer from frequent security issues because they have weak std libs.

I still think that was a really great model that got overlooked. It was really great in terms of latency/throughput while still being fairly intelligent.

I was planning on using it for a design tool, but moved over to luna since it's comparable speeds and cost for a lot more intelligence.

We really, really need better secondary models that can do things fast and do them cheaply for lots of dumb tasks. Not only because it can be used as sub agents by frontier models, but also because it can be like a universal grease for all kinds of software.

I've got an app I am building and I don't want to tie myself with frontier models because I'll never be able to beat openai/anthropic. I just want a simple, cheap, instantaneous model that can just go through my documentation and tell the user what to do next and how to integrate with whatever ai subscription they have.