| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago |
| Only it’s a bit like me getting back into cooking because I described the dish I want to a trainee cook. |
|
| ▲ | simonw 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Depends on how you're using the LLMs. It can also be like having someone else around to chop the onions, wash the pans and find the ingredients when you need them. |
|
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The head chefs at most restaurants delegate the majority of details of dishes to their kitchen staff, then critique and refine. |
|
| ▲ | peteforde 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This approach seems to have worked out for both Warhol and Chihuly. |
|
| ▲ | elliotbnvl 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As long as you get the dish you want when before you couldn’t have it — who cares? |
| |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, as long as you don’t expect me to digest it, live with it, and crap it out for you, I see no problem with it. | | |
| ▲ | elliotbnvl 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My expectations don’t change whether or not I’m using AI, and neither do my standards. Whether or not you use my software is up to you. | |
| ▲ | peteforde 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you're saying that if you go to any famous restaurant and the famous face of the restaurant isn't personally preparing your dinner with their hands and singular attention, you are disappointed. Got it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | esafak 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are you even cooking if you did not collect your own ingredients and forge your own tools?? |
|
| ▲ | maplethorpe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Isn't that still considered cooking? If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did cook it. |
| |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Work harder! Now I’m a life coach because I’m responsible for your promotion. | | |
| ▲ | maplethorpe 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, maybe my analogy wasn't the best. But the point I was trying to make is that using AI tools to write code doesn't meant you didn't write the code. | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Very apt analogy. I'm still waiting for my paycheck. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did "cook" it. The person who actually cooked it cooked it. Being the "catalyst" doesn't make you the creator, nor does it mean you get to claim that you did the work. Otherwise you could say you "cooked a meal" every time you went to MacDonald's. | | |
| ▲ | elliotbnvl 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Why is the head chef called the head chef, then? He doesn’t “cook”. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To differentiate him from the "cook", which is what we call those who carry out the actual act of cooking. | | |
| ▲ | elliotbnvl 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, don’t go around calling me a compiler! | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If that's what you do, then the name is perfectly apt. Why shy away from what you are? |
|
| |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The difference is that the head chef can cook very well and could do a better job of the dish than the trainee. | |
| ▲ | krapp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "head chef" is a managerial position but yes often they can and do cook. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mock-possum 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would argue that you technically did not cook it yourself - you are however responsible for having cooked it. You directed the cooking. |
|
|
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Flipping toggle switches went out of fashion many, many, many years ago. We've been describing to trainees (compilers) the dish we want for longer than most on HN have been alive. |
| |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Actually, we’ve been formally declaring the logic of programs to compilers, which is something very different. | | |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | (Replying to myself because hn) That’s not the only difference at all. A good use of an LLM might be to ask it what the difference between using an LLM and writing code for a compiler is. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Equally a good use for a legacy compiler that compiles a legacy language. Granted, you are going to have to write a lot more boilerplate to see it function (that being the difference, after all), but the outcome will be the same either way. It's all just 1s and 0s at the end of the day. | | |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sorry friend, if you can’t identify the important differences between a compiler and an LLM, either intentionally or unintentionally (I can’t tell), then I must question the value of whatever you have to say on the topic. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The important difference is the reduction in boilerplate, which allows programs to be written with (often) significantly less code. Hence the time savings (and fun) spoken of in the original article. This isn't really a new phenomenon. Languages have been adding things like arrays and maps as builtins to reduce the boilerplate required around them. The modern languages of which we speak take that same idea to a whole new level, but such is the nature of evolution. | | |
| ▲ | beaker52 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, when we write code it has a an absolute and specific meaning to the compiler. When we write words to an LLM they are written in a non-specific informal language (usually English) and processed non-deterministically too. This is an incredibly important distinction that makes coding, and asking the LLM to code, two completely different ball games. One is formal, one is not. And yes, this isn’t a new phenomenon. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's different in some ways (such is evolution), but is not a distinction that matters. Kind of like the difference between imperative and declarative programming. Different language models, but all the same at the end of the day. | | |
| ▲ | polyamid23 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I hope you are joking. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx a day ago | parent [-] | | The only other difference mentioned is in implementation, but concepts are not defined by implementation. Obviously you could build a C compiler with neural nets. That wouldn't somehow magically turn everything into something completely different just because someone used a 'novel' approach inside of the black box. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only difference is that newer languages have figured out how to remove a lot of the boilerplate. | | |
|
|
