Re:Why National Labs are investing (heavily) in AI
by keiferski on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @01:15AM
(#43969795)
I don’t understand this viewpoint at all. Even if AI tools are nothing more than complex autocomplete systems - and not some kind of new consciousness - that alone is enough to dramatically shift entire industries. And it already is doing so…this isn’t theoretical anymore.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why National Labs are investing (heavily) in AI
by vanschelven on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @02:51AM
(#43970204)
Not OP, but I think the viewpoint here is simply "if someone makes an evidently false claim ('great coders') right off the bat, it's enough to color the reading of the rest of the article. That's independent of what you're saying
Re:Why National Labs are investing (heavily) in AI
by keiferski on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @03:23AM
(#43970415)
Fair enough, but not sure that's much better of a viewpoint. It might be a worse one. The off-hand comment was "very good coders" (not "great") and dismissing the person's entire thought process because of a nitpick is not a good way to learn anything.
Re:Why National Labs are investing (heavily) in AI
by skydhash on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @12:47PM
(#43974926)
Just check any mature project's commit history. It's rarely that huge, even for things that brought in features. Here's a PR[0] that's less than the usual rambling ChatGPT produces, and add a valuable feature to the software. More often than not, you spend more time designing the feature than actually coding it. And a huge part of the design process is dealing with impact to other parts of the project.