undefined

points

[-]

I suspect the people advocating for this don't actually do this, its one of those things that you say because it sounds modern and up to date, and makes for a good sounding blogpost. The actual reality of any of what they're talking about is absolutely terrible

Even just the cost of this would be a disaster, especially once everything goes to token based pricing

by raincole2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Some people even claim that they don't commit the code into source control, only the prompts. The best part about the internet is that you can publish any random shower thought.

by inigyou2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't even commit the prompts. I just commit the one prompt which says "do what the customer wants. ask when more information is required."

by CamperBob22 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Around 2020 I started getting downvoted for predicting that while the most popular programming languages at the time were Python, Java, and JavaScript, or whatever they were, the most popular programming languages in 2035 would be English and Mandarin.

Looks more like 2030, after all. So the downvoters had a point.

by CamperBob22 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Been doing it for the past several weeks. It is no longer correct to say that LLMs can't/don't/won't exercise reasonable aesthetic judgement on the finished product. Immense progress in this area has been made recently.

If you want the model to maintain a certain look and feel, or to preserve the UX in other ways, tell it. Even if it doesn't get it 100% right today, the direction of progress is pretty clear, so you might as well get used to prompting the models accordingly.

by 20k2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This doesn't appear to relate to the conversation at all, because we aren't talking about generating entire products. Is this just generic AI advertising?

by CamperBob21 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm responding specifically to the GP's point: 'And no, "Check that the software works as intended" is not going to cut it, as AI are very, very good at obeying the letter but not the spirit of the ask,' and specifically to your rejoinder ('I suspect the people advocating for this don't actually do this.')

This is simply not the case when working with Fable-class models. Those who persist in believing it are hopefully very close to retirement.

I'm not 'advocating' anything, just stating a fact.

by g3f32r1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> "Check that the software works as intended" is not going to cut it, as AI are very, very good at obeying the letter but not the spirit of the ask.

Surely you don't think that he literally meant to use those seven words as a bullet proof prompt, right?

I will never understand this way of responding literally and pedantically to verbal psudocode. He's leaving it as an exercise to the reader to specify "check that the software works as intended" because he could never possibly properly articulate a perfectly comprehensive QA and validation flow for every piece of software that would satisfy every individual's need.

by xmprt1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's still the same problem. Now instead of checking if the code is correct, you have to check every day if your prompt is still validating the correct features that you expect to work.

by arjie3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I don’t auto-rebase but I definitely vendor in and choose to update on my own cadence.

by lanstin2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

yeah, vendor in is the only way to stay sane over time, if you understand the cost of dependencies (and have a reasonable security model). And forking some Python or Go dep on Github and using that instead of the canonical one is pretty ergonomic. I don't know how Rust folks manage with so many dependencies via Cargo - my friend who loves Rust says they are smaller and more "one thing done well" but the complexity of hundreds or thousands of deps just scares me.

by arjie1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My number one problem with Rust (which I otherwise like) is that Cargo allows build-time code execution so I need to run in a sandbox (unergonomic for me) or provide agent instructions to inspect `build.rs` style code in libraries etc. prior to compile. In practice it's easy to build and then ship a dev binary into a sandbox, but it's not so pleasant to build in a sandbox, so I don't want to get build-time pwned. Makes me very unhappy.

Right now, I just have a build server that I ship things to and does lots of build-caching etc. so it's fine, but I would have preferred not to have a system that actively allows build-time thievery of my ~/.ssh

by zephen3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> This sounds like hell. You have unreliable actor...

But, at least you know the cost up-front.

Oh, wait...