Would like to move something we could all share and willing to burn through a little more money, but not wanting to break any banks. API or subscription? Just curious what others have found as they've wandered the chaos that is paying for this stuff.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47723538

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I don’t think this is the right question. What you posit is a consumption dilemma. It’s a valid question, but it focuses on what values we might arbitrarily ascribe to how we source what we consume.

The OPs dilemma is more akin to giving a cutting board for Christmas that you bought vs handmade. Or some other. I think these cases of how we present what it appears we created is the dilemma OP is facing.

Multiple economic write ups have concluded that Reagan’s “stick it to the upstart guy” cost us tax payers way more than it would if they’d just acceded and maybe even thrown in a gracious bonus to say thanks.

Larger sociology say the intangible cost to labor balance laws actually were much more.

Reagan’s trickle down (great euphemism for “piss on”) movement was the beginning of the demise of the GOP IMO. Disclaimed: I voted both times for him and many GOP followers.

You can still do contract ATC work after 56.

And yet, in ironic counterpoint, there is a different artist I follow on Spotify that does EDM-fusion-various-world-genres. And it’s very clearly prompt generated. And that doesn’t bother me.

My hypothesis is that it has to do with how we connect/resonate with the creations. If they are merely for entertainment, then we care less. But if the creation inspired an emotion/reasoning that connects us to other humans, we feel betrayed, nay, abandoned, when it comes up being synthetic.

Tomato, tomawto

/s

I even brought my popcorn :(

For the reasons explored in the post, I prefer my type systems optional. It has been my experience and observation that typing in languages follow an 90:10 rule. You get 90% of the gains for 10% of the effort. And the remaining 10% for 9x the effort.

I’m rather happy with the way Python allows me to do the easy ones and/or pick the hotspots.

I’ve worked in exhaustively typed languages, and while it gives a sense of safety, it’s literally exhausting. And, anecdotally, I feel I dealt with more zero divides, subscript woops, and other runtime validation errors than I had in less typed languages.

Not that it matters. Soon, we’ll use semantically vague human language, to prompt, cajole, nudge LLM agents to produce programs that are (lossy) statistical approximations of what might be correct programs.

One of the three motivators he mentions is mastery. And cites examples of why people waste hours with no pay learning to play instruments and other hobbies in their discretionary time. This has been very true for me as a coder.

That said, I enjoy the pursuit of mastery as a programmer less than I used to. Mastering a “simple” thing is rewarding. Trying to master much of modern software is not. Web programming rots your brain. Modern languages and software product motivations are all about gaining more money and mindshare. There is no mastering any stack, it changes to swiftly to matter. I view the necessity of using LLMs as an indictment against what working in and with information technology has become.

I wonder if the hope of mastering the agentic process, is what is rejuvenating some programmers. It’s a new challenge to get good at. I wonder what Pink would say today about the role of AI in “what motivates us”.

(Edited, author name correction)

Spent an hour or so unraveling the mess. My feeling are growing more and more conflicted about these tools. They are here to stay obviously.

I’m honestly uncertain about the junior engineers I’m working with who are more productive than they might be otherwise, but are gaining zero (or very little) experience. It’s like the future is a world where the entire programming sphere is dominated by the clueless non technical management that we’ve all had to deal with in small proportion a time or two.

Is there any published work on this? Or just more of an observed accusation?

With the advent of agent generated code, everyone's seeing a lot of code generated, in part at least, with the help of the agent. I'm currently reviewing some code done by a junior developer. It's in a somewhat legacy (6 years old?) Swift code base. The submission is out of step with the conventions of the rest of the code base, and has lots of "best practice" things, but that aren't really relevant to the current problem. And the object design is terrible.

But, the code works fine and fits the desired bill.

I find myself wondering, in an age where LLMs reason about and generate the code, how much value should I place in code/structure readability? It's a very intrinsic value for me. But maybe this is a case where one's aged experience becomes a liability, where spaghetti code isn't a problem anymore of the LLMs reason about code differently. What are others doing?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47357216

Points: 4

# Comments: 4

fulminated, fulminating to explode with a loud noise; detonate. to issue denunciations or the like (usually followed byagainst ).

(Because “don’t fulminate” is the rule that follows the referenced one :) )

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47312896

Points: 2

# Comments: 1