Hardware that ships with documentation about what instructions it supports. With example code. Like my 8-bit micros did.
And software that’s open and can be modified.
Instead what we have is:
- AI which are little black boxes and beyond our ability to fully reason.
- perpetual subscription services for the same software we used to “own”.
- hardware that is completely undocumented to all but a small few who are granted an NDA before hand
- operating systems that are trying harder and harder to prevent us from running any software they haven’t approved because “security”
- and distributed systems become centralised, such as GitHub, CloudFlare, AWS, and so on and so forth.
The only thing special about right now is that we have added yet another abstraction on top of an already overly complex software stack to allow us to use natural language as pseudocode. And that is a version special breakthrough, but it’s not enough by itself to overlook all the other problems with modern computing.
If GenAI could only write documentation it would still be a game changer.
When you bought a computer in the 80s, you’d get a technical manual about the internal workings of the hardware. In some cases even going as far as detailing what the registers did on their graphics chipset or CPU.
GenAI wouldn’t help here for modern hardware because GenAI doesn’t have access to those specifications. And if it did, then it would already be documented so we wouldnt need GenAI to write it ;)
And worse, if you are using it for public documentation, sometimes it hallucinate endpoints (i don't want to say too much here, but it happened recently to a quite used B2B SaaS).
I run a bunch of jobs weekly to review docs for inconsistencies and write a plan to fix. It still needs humans in the loop if the agents don’t converge after a few turns, but it’s largely automatic (I baby sat it for a few months validating each change).
- “You’re not spending enough money”
- “You’re not micromanaging enough”
Seriously?
In another thread, people were looking for things to build. If there's a subscription service that you think shouldn't be a subscription (because they're not actually doing anything new for that subscription), disrupt the fuck out of it. Rent seekers about to lose their shirts. I pay for eg Spotify because there's new music that has to happen, but Dropbox?
If you're not adding new whatever (features/content) in order to justify a subscription, then you're only worth the electricity and hardware costs or else I'm gonna build and host my own.
Turns out it’s a lot harder to disrupt than it sounds.
The closest thing we get to “disruption” these days are web services with complimentary Electron apps, which basically just serves the same content as the website except for duplicating the memory overhead of running a fresh browser instance.
But application software that is, or should be, running locally, I agree. Charge for upgrades, by all accounts, but not for the privilege of continued use of an old, unmaintained version.
Maybe an iteresting route is using LLMs to flatten/simplify.. so we can dig out from some of the complexity.
Using AI to write yet another run-of-the-mill web service written in the same bloated frameworks and programming languages designed for the lowest common denominator of developers really doesn’t feel like it’s taking advantage leap in capabilities that AI bring.
But using AI to write native applications in low level languages, built for performance and memory utilisation, does at least feel like we are bringing some actual quality of life savings in exchange for all those fossil fuels burnt to crunch the LLMs tokens.
Hostile operating systems. Take the effort to switch to Linux.
Undocumented hardware, well there is far more open source hardware out there today and back in the day it was fun to reverse engineer hardware, now we just expect it to be open because we couldn’t be bothered to put in the effort anymore.
Effort gives me agency. I really like learning new things and so agentic LLMs don’t make me feel hopeless.
I also run Linux. But that doesn’t change how the two major platforms behave and that, as software developers, we have to support those platforms.
Open source hardware is great but it’s not on the same league of price and performance as proprietary hardware.
Agentic AI doesn’t make me feel hopeless either. I’m just describing what I’d personally define as a “golden age of computing”.
when someone invents a new scheduling algorithm or a new concurrent data structure, it's usually based on hunches and empirical results (benchmarks) too. nobody sits down and mathematically proves their new linux scheduler is optimal before shipping it. they test it against representative workloads and see if there is uplift.
we understand transformer architectures at the same theoretical level we understand most complex systems. we know the principles, we have solid intuitions about why certain things work, but the emergent behavior of any sufficiently complex system isn't fully predictable from first principles.
that's true of operating systems, distributed databases, and most software above a certain complexity threshold.
That's like saying you can understand humans by watching some physics or biology videos.
Nobody has built a human so we don’t know how they work
We know exactly how LLM technology works
> We were often surprised by what we saw in the model
https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...
Whereas with LLMs, we get surprised even when using them in an expected way. This is why so much research happens investigating how these models work even after they've been released to the public. And it's also why prompt engineering can feel like black magic.
Everything you said right now holds equally true for chemical engineering and biomedical engineering so like you need get some experience
We’re talking about software algorithms. Chemical and biomedical engineering are entirely different fields. As are psychology, gardening, and morris dancing
That doesn't mean complex systems never behaved unexpectedly, but the engineering goal was explicit determinism wherever possible: predictable execution, bounded failure modes, reproducible debugging. That tradition carried through operating systems, compilers, finance software, avionics, etc.
What is newer is our comfort with probabilistic or emergent systems, especially in AI/ML. LLMs are deterministic mathematically, but in practice they behave probabilistically from a user perspective, which makes them feel different from classical algorithms.
So I'd frame it less as "determinism is new" and more as "we're now building more systems where strict determinism isn't always the primary goal."
Going back to the original point, getting educated on LLMs will help you demystify some of the non-determinism but as I mentioned in a previous comment, even the people who literally built the LLMs get surprised by the behavior of their own software.
If you don’t own the model then you have a problem that has nothing to do with technology
I agree, that it would be good. (It is one reason why I wanted to design a better computer, which would include full documentation about the hardware and the software (hopefully enough to make a compatible computer), as well as full source codes (which can help if some parts of the documentation are unclear, but also can be used to make your own modifications if needed).) (In some cases, we have some of this already, but not entirely. Not all hardware and software has the problems you list, although it is too common now. Making a better computer will not prevent such problematic things on other computers, and not entirely preventing such problems on the new computer design either, but it would help a bit, especially if it is actually designed good rather than badly.)
One question is how will AI factor in to this. Will it completely remove the problem? Will local models be capable of finding or fixing every dependency in your 20yo project? Or will they exacerbate things by writing terrible code with black hole dependency trees? We're gonna find out.
All in all I think the end result will be the same. I don't think any of my Go code will survive long term.
Go has its warts but backwards compatibility isn’t one of them. The language is almost as durable as Perl.
How many similar programs written in 1999 compiled without issue in 2007? The dependency and tooling environment is as robust as it's ever been.
Have we though? I feel the opposite it true. These days developers expect users of their modules and frameworks will be regularly updating those dependencies and doing so dynamically from the web.
While this is true for active code bases. You can quickly find stable but unmaintained code will eventually rot as its dependencies deprecate.
There aren't many languages out there where their wider ecosystem thinks about API-stability in terms of years.
Plus 8 years was just an example, not the furthest back Go will support. I've just pulled a project I'd written against Go 1.0 (the literal first release of Golang). It's 16 years old now, uses C interop too (so not a trivial Go program), and I've not touched the code in the years since. It compiled without any issues.
Go is one of the very few programming languages that has an official backwards compatibility guarantee. This does lead to some issues of its own (eg some implementations of new features have been somewhat less elegant because the Go team favoured an approach that didn't introduce changes to the existing syntax).
As long as I have a stack of esp32s and a working C compiler, no one can take away my ability to make useful programs, including maintaining the compiler itself.
Not all software now is SaaS, but unfortunately it is too common now.
> But I think it also applies to most code written in JS, Python, C#, Go, Rust, etc. There are too many dependencies.
Some people (including myself) prefer to write programs without too many dependencies, in order to avoid that problem. Other things also help, including some people write programs for older systems which can be emulated, or will use a more simpler portable C code, etc. There are things that can be done, to avoid too many dependencies.
There is uxn, which is a simple enough instruction set that people can probably implement it without too much difficulty. Although some programs might need some extensions, and some might use file names, etc, many programs will work, because it is designed in a simple way that it will work.
Now the determinism is gone and computers are gaining the worst qualities of people.
My only sanctuary in life is slipping away from me. And I have to hear people tell me I'm wrong who aren't even sympathetic to how this affects me.
Put in a word and see what it means? That's been easy for at least a century. Have a meaning in mind and get the word? The only way to get this before was to read a ton of books and be knowledgable or talk to someone who was. Now it's always available.
And often incorrect! (and occasionally refuses to answer)
The scary applications are the ones where it's not so easy to check correctness...
As for things that can actually be incorrect, that has always been impossible, but we accept the human consensus to be a close enough approximation. With that, verifying 'correctness' to the degree that is possible is actually quite easy through validating it across many different LLMs trained on the human consensus. They will not all hallucinate identically. If convergence is found, then you have also found the human consensus. That doesn't prove correctness — we have never had a way to do that — but it is equivalent to how we have always dealt with establishing what we believe is correct.
Despite your insistence, I think you will find that the human consensus is that it useful. The human consensus is especially biased in this case, I will grant you that, but it seems few humans wish they were bears in the forest. Our ability to so effectively communicate in such a messy, imperfect environment is what has enabled us to be unlike all the other animals.
It might not sound like it should work on paper, but in the real world it does.
asdjklfh asdjhgflkj bveahrvjkhgv hjagsdfhj hgertjhga ads fhdfjmjhkr
Nope, that's incorrect english.
Turns out that because we've defined "words" as a thing that means a thing, now there are rules around "language" and "words". So while you're welcome to invent whatever combination of sounds you prefer to mean what you like, those sounds can be "correct" or "incorrect" as soon as other people become involved, because now you've entered into a social construct that extends beyond yourself.
So again your conclusion is technically correct, in a navel-gazing "the universe is what I perceive" sort of way, but counterproductive to use as a building block for communication.
There is no correct or incorrect here, but I will say it looks perfectly fine to me. I don't understand it. Is that what you are trying to communicate? There are many words I don't understand; even ones found in the dictionary. That is nothing new.
Here's the magic: I don't need to understand. Nobody is born with the understanding. Where communication is desired, we use other devices to express lack of understanding and keep trying to convey intent until a shared understanding is reached. I don't yet understand what that means, but assuming you are here in good faith, I eventually will as you continue to work to communicate your intent behind it.
I know computer people who spend their days writing in programming languages that never talk back struggle with this concept, but that doesn't change the reality.
this is important, i feel like a lot of people are falling in to the "stop liking what i don't like" way of thinking. Further, there's a million different ways to apply an AI helper in software development. You can adjust your workflow in whatever way works best for you. ..or leave it as is.
Much of the AI antipathy reminds me of Wikipedia in the early-mid 2000s. I remember feeling amazed with it, but also remember a lot of ranting by skeptics about how anyone could put anything on there, and therefore it was unreliable, not to be used, and doomed to fail.
20 years later and everyone understands that Wikipedia may have its shortcomings, and yet it is still the most impressive, useful advancement in human knowledge transfer in a generation.
I think LLMs as a technology are pretty cool, much like crowdsourcing is. We finally have pretty good automatic natural language processing that scales to large corpora. That's big. Also, I think the state of the software industry that is mostly driving the development, deployment, and ownership of this technology is mostly doing uninspired and shitty things with it. I have some hope that better orgs and distributed communities will accomplish some cool and maybe even monumental things with them over time, but right now the field is bleak, not because the technology isn't impressive (although somehow despite how impressive it is it's still being oversold) but because silicon valley is full of rotten institutions with broken incentives, the same ones that brought us social media and subscriptions to software. My hope for the new world a technology will bring about will never rest with corporate aristocracy, but with the more thoughtful institutions and the distributed open source communities that actually build good shit for humanity, time and time again
Garbage in, garbage out still applies.
Which is why we shouldn't be surprised when AI, trained on the collective wisdom of facebook posts and youtube comments, keeping lying to us.
> ...to find the word, or words, by which [an] idea may be most fitly and aptly expressed
Digital reverse dictionaries / thesauri like https://www.onelook.com/thesaurus/ can take natural language input, and afaict are strictly better at this task than LLMs. (I didn't know these tools existed when I wrote the rest of this comment.)
I briefly investigated LLMs for this purpose, back when I didn't know how to use a thesaurus; but I find thesauruses a lot more useful. (Actually, I'm usually too lazy to crack out a proper thesaurus, so I spend 5 seconds poking around Wiktionary first: that's usually Good Enough™ to find me an answer, when I find an answer I can trust it, and I get the answer faster than waiting for an LLM to finish generating a response.)
There's definitely room to improve upon the traditional "big book of synonyms with double-indirect pointers" thesaurus, but LLMs are an extremely crude solution that I don't think actually is an improvement.
"What's a word that means admitting a large number of uses?"
That seems hard to find in a thesaurus without either versatile or multifarious as a starting point (but those are the end points).
> Best match is versatile which usually means: Capable of many different uses
with "multi-purpose", "adaptable", "flexible" and "multi-use" as the runner-up candidates.
---
Like you, I had no idea that tools like OneLook Thesaurus existed (despite how easy it would be to make one), so here's my attempt to look this up manually.
"Admitting a large number of uses" -> manually abbreviated to "very useful" -> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useful -> dead end. Give up, use a thesaurus.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/very_usef..., sense 2 "Usable in multiple ways", lists:
> useful multipurpose versatile flexible multifunction adaptable all-around all-purpose all-round multiuse multifaceted extremely useful one-size-fits-all universal protean general general-purpose […]
Taking advantage of the fact my passive vocabulary is greater than my active vocabulary: no, no, yes. (I've spuriously rejected "multipurpose" – a decent synonym of "versatile [tool]" – but that doesn't matter.) I'm pretty sure WordHippo is machine-generated from some corpus, and a lot of these words don't mean "very useful", but they're good at playing the SEO game, and I'm lazy. Once we have versatile, we can put that into an actual thesaurus: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/versatile. But none of those really have the same sense as "versatile" in the context I'm thinking of (except perhaps "adaptable"), so if I were writing something, I'd go with "versatile".
Total time taken: 15 seconds. And I'm confident that the answer is correct.
By the way, I'm not finding "multifarious" anywhere. It's not a word I'm familiar with, but that doesn't actually seem to be a proper synonym (according to Wiktionary, at least: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thesaurus:heterogeneous). There are certainly contexts where you could use this word in place of "versatile" (e.g. "versatile skill-set" → "multifarious skill-set"), but I criticise WordHippo for far less dubious synonym suggestions.
M-W gives an example use of "Today’s Thermomix has become a beast of multifarious functionality. — Matthew Korfhage, Wired News, 21 Nov. 2025 "
wordhippo strikes me as having gone beyond the traditional paper thesaurus, but I can accept that things change and that we can make a much larger thesaurus than we did when we had to collect and print. thesaurus.com does not offer these results, though, as a reflection of a more traditional one, nor does the m-w thesaurus.
Importantly to the point being discussed, what you did does not work at all against an actual physical thesaurus book.
> (state of being useful): usefulness, value, advantages, benefit, return, merits, virtue, note
where "note" is a synonym of distinction, not utility, and Thesaurus:utility has fewer entries than this. Versatility should be listed in Thesaurus:utility as a related concept.
Furthermore, even if we allow "very useful", that's a far cry from "admitting a large number of uses". The latter requires a search engine to properly map.
Which they've been good at for a while. You could have googled "word meaning admitting a large number of uses" back in 2018 and gotten good answers.
My point is, the tools you've linked to are useful/versatile, but it's not the thesaurus that makes them so useful, it's the digital query engine built on top of the thesaurus.
Did you have trouble with this part?
To me it is reminiscent of liberalist history, the idea that history is a constant progression from animalistic barbarism to civilisation, and nothing but the latest thing is of any value. Instead of jumping to conclusions and showing my loathing for this particular tradition I decided to try and get more information about where they're coming from.
Is my use of a dictionary a blatant disregard for millennia of scriptural knowledge traditions? I don’t think so at all. Rather, it exemplifies how human knowledge advances: we build on the work of our predecessors and contemporaries rather than reinvent the wheel every time. LLM use is an example of this.
There was another way: Make one up.
That is what the people you read from/talked to did before relaying it to you.
That depends on your goals. If you are writing in your private journal, or a comment on HN, it doesn't matter one bit.
If you want to find commonality with other people it is significantly more efficient, but still not required. It is not like one is born understanding words. They are not passed down from the heavens. They are an invention. When I say 'sloopydoopidydoo' you might not know what I intend by it right away, but the path to figuring it out is a solved problem. Even young children can handle it.
> For existing concepts it's much better to use the words that have already been established, because other people can look them up in a dictionary.
Let's put it to the test: I added enums to the programming language I am working on. Tell me, with your dictionary in hand, what do I mean by that?
Here's the thing: According to the dictionary, an enum is something like Go's iota or C's enum. But many people will tell you that Go doesn't have enums — that an enum is what others might recognize as a tagged union. That kind of language evolution happens all the time. So, what do I mean? Am I using the dictionary definition, or the community definition that is quickly gaining favour and will no doubt be added to the dictionary as soon as someone has a chance to update it? Both uses have been widely established in my opinion. In fact, the Swift programming language's documentation even acknowledges both uses and then goes on to explain what it means by "enum" to remove any confusion.
I look forward to seeing if you captured my intent.
In fact, you'll probably be more productive in the long term.
We could easily approach a state of affairs where most of what you see online is AI and almost every "person" you interact with is fake. It's hard to see how someone who supposedly remembers computing in the 80s, when the power of USENET and BBSs to facilitate long-distance, or even international, communication and foster personal relationships (often IRL) was enthralling, not thinking we've lost something.
Some of my best friends IRL today were people I first met "online" in those days... but I haven't met anyone new in a longggg time. Yeah, I'm also much older, but the environment is also very different. The community aspect is long gone.
But, those days disappeared a long time ago. Probably at least 20-30 years ago.
You just have to get off the commercial crap and you’ll find it.
Total dependence on a service?
1. It costs 100k in hardware to run Kimi 2.5 with a single session at decent tok p/s and its still not capable for anything serious.
2. I want whatever you're smoking if you think anyone is going to spend billions training models capable of outcompeting them are affordable to run and then open source them.
How much serious work can it do versus chatgpt3 (SOTA only a few years ago)?
They are getting better, but that doesn't mean they're good.
We have a magical pseudo-thinking machine that we can run locally completely under our control, and instead the goal posts have moved to "but it's not as fast as the proprietary could".
It's more cost effective for someone to pay $20 to $100 month for a Claude subscription compared to buying a 512 gig Mac Studio for $10K. We won't discuss the cost of the NVidia rig.
I mess around with local AI all the time. It's a fun hobby, but the quality is still night and day.
1. You are not forced to use the AI in the first place.
2. If you want to use one, you can self host it one of the open models.
That at any moment in time the open models are not equivalent in capabilities to the SOTA paid models is beside the point.
But there’s new things like sweep [0] that you now can do locally.
And 2-3 years ago capable open models weren’t even a thing. Now we’ve made progress on that front. And I believe they’ll keep improving (both on accessibility and competency).
But as it stands right now, the most useful LLMs are hosted by companies that are legally obligated to hand over your data if the US gov. had decided that it wants it. It's unacceptable.
Not to mention they could just sell it to the highest bidder, or simply use it to produce competition and put you out of business. Especially if you're using their service to do the development...
Software engineering AI API dependence seems to have already screamed past the tobacco mark but we’re still a long ways away from oil. Though I would bet that we hit it sometime in the next few decades once the bulk of the industry has never written code in any serious capacity.
Those things are also regulated as utilities.
Simon doesn't touch on my favorite part of Chris's video though, which is Chris citing his friend Jesse Kriss. This stuck out at me so hard, and is so close to what you are talking about:
> The interesting thing about this is that it's not taking away something that was human and making it a robot. We've been forced to talk to computers in computer language. And this is turning that around.
I don't see (as you say) a personality. But I do see the ability to talk. The esoteria is still here underneath, but computer programmers having this lock on the thing that has eaten the world, being the only machine whisperers around, is over. That depth of knowledge is still there and not going away! But notably too, the LLM will help you wade in, help those not of the esoteric personhood of programmers to dive in & explore.
Fundamentally this is the only point I really have on the 'anti-AI' side, but it's a really important one.
I feel like we've reached the worst age of computing. Where our platforms are controlled by power hungry megacorporations and our software is over-engineered garbage.
The same company that develops our browsers and our web standards is also actively destroying the internet with AI scrapers. Hobbyists lost the internet to companies and all software got worse for it.
Our most popular desktop operating system doesn't even have an easy way to package and update software for it.
There are more alternatives than ever though. People are still making C64 games today, cheap chips are everywhere. Documentation is abundant... When you layer in AI, it takes away labor costs, meaning that you don't need to make economically viable things, you can make fun things.
I have at least a dozen projects going now that I would have never had time or energy for. Any itch, no matter how geeky and idiosyncratic, is getting scratched by AI.
So what is stopping you other than yourself?
I’ve been programming since 1998 when I was in elementary school. I have the technical skills to write almost anything I want, from productivity applications to operating systems and compilers. The vast availability of free, open source software tools helps a lot, and despite this year’s RAM and SSD prices, hardware is far more capable today at comparatively lower prices than a decade ago and especially when I started programming in 1998. My desktop computer is more capable than Google’s original cluster from 1998.
However, building businesses that can compete against Big Tech is an entirely different matter. Competing against Big Tech means fighting moats, network effects, and intellectual property laws. I can build an awesome mobile app, but when it’s time for me to distribute it, I have to either deal with app stores unless I build for a niche platform.
Yes, I agree that it’s never been easier to build competing products due to the tools we have today. However, Big Tech is even bigger today than it was in the past.
Look at how even the Posix ecosystem - once a vibrant cluster of a dozen different commercial and open source operating systems built around a shared open standard - has more or less collapsed into an ironclad monopoly because LXC became a killer app in every sense of the term. It’s even starting to encroach on the last standing non-POSIX operating system, Windows, which now needs the ability to run Linux in a tightly integrated virtual machine to be viable for many commercial uses.
Open source software democratized software in a huge way.
is there anything you use that isn't? like laptop on which you work, software that you use to browse the internet, read the email... I've heard similar comment like yours before and I am not sure I understand it given everything else - why does this matter for LLMs and not the phone you use etc etc?
My computer was never controlled by any corporation, until now.
So similar to IBM in the 80s. Time for a scrappy little startup to disrupt the industry.
In 1980 IBM earned 3.56 billion dollars[1] (15 adjusted for inflation). Apple earned 416.16 billion in 2025, Alphabet 402.8 billion.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/17/business/earnings-ibm-net...
Honestly I think it's under-engineer garbage. Proper engineering is putting in the effort to come up with simpler solutions. The complex solutions appear because we push out the first thing that "works" without time to refine it.
But I mourned when CRT came out, I had just started programming. But I quickly learned CRTs were far better,
I mourned when we moved to GUIs, I never liked the move and still do not like dealing with GUIs, but I got used to it.
Went through all kinds of programming methods, too many to remember, but those were easy to ignore and workaround. I view this new AI thing in a similar way. I expect it will blow over and a new bright shiny programming methodology will become a thing to stress over. In the long run, I doubt anything will really change.
If you never tried Claude Code, give it s try. It's very easy to get I to. And you'll soon see how powerful it is.
It's remarkable that people who think like this don't have the foresight to see that this technology is not a higher level of abstraction, but a replacement of human intellect. You may be working with it today, but whatever you're doing will eventually be done better by the same technology. This is just a transition period.
Assuming, of course, that the people producing these tools can actually deliver what they're selling, which is very much uncertain. It doesn't change their end goal, however. Nor the fact that working with this new "abstraction" is the most mind numbing activity a person can do.
That’s not a higher level of abstraction, it’s having someone do the work for you while doing less and less of the thinking as well. Someone might resist that urge and consistently guide the model closely but that’s probably not what the collective range of SWEs who use these models are doing and rapidly the ease of using these models and our natural reluctance to take on mental stress is likely to make sure that eventually everyone lets LLMs do most or all of the thinking for them. If things really go in that direction and spread, I foresee a collective dumbing down of the general population.
I was born in 84 and have been doing software since 97
it’s never been easier, better or more accessible time to make literally anything - by far.
Also if you prefer to code by hand literally nobody is stopping you AND even that is easier.
Cause if you wanted to code for console games you literally couldn’t in the 90s without 100k specialized dev machine.
It’s not even close.
This “I’m a victim because my software engineering hobby isn’t profitable anymore” take is honestly baffling.
The analogy I like is it's like driving vs. walking. We were healthier when we walked everywhere, but it's very hard to quit driving and go back even if it's going to be better for you.
During the summer I’ll walk 30-50 miles a week
However I’m not going to walk to work ever and I’m damn sir not going to walk in the rain or snow unless if I can avoid it
LLMs were trained on public code libraries and unfortunately most pf that OSS code is garbage.
There are ofcourse raisins there, but those are far in between.
Top it off with hallucinations and suddenly you spend more time debugging messy AI code when you could write the same in a fraction of that time.
The easier the task, the better job LLMs do, the harder the task the worse results you get.
Source: working with those tools daily.
Using your analogy:
- by car it will be 30km uphill, coz of how the road is built
- walking it will be 1km straight line
There have been wild technological developments but we've lost privacy and autonomy across basically all devices (excepting the people who deliberately choose to forego the most capable devices, and even then there are firmware blobs). We've got the facial recognition and tracking so many sci-fi dystopias have warned us to avoid.
I'm having an easier time accomplishing more difficult technological tasks. But I lament what we have come to. I don't think we are in the Star Trek future and I imagined doing more drugs in a Neuromancer future. It's like a Snow Crash / 1984 corporate government collab out here, it kinda sucks.
So you're welcome to make the 100000000th Copy of the same thing that nobody cares about anymore.
Typical boomers think the world is perfect because they have everything they need, without any care for the next generation. Thinking, oh they'll figure it out. Guess what we're not. The world is going to shit because of attitudes like this, you'll leave us with nothing.
This things is going to erase careers and render skills sets and knowledge cultivated over decades worthless.
Anyone can promt the same fucking shit now and call it a day.
even if you can be a prompt engineer (or whatever it's called this week) today
well, with the feedback you're providing: you're training it to do that too
you are LITERALLY training the newly hired outsourced personnel to do your job
but this time you won't be able to get a job anywhere else, because your fellow class traitors are doing exactly the same thing at every other company in the world
In fact, I remember when I could actually shop on Amazon or browse for restaurants on Yelp while trusting the reviews. None of that is possible today.
We have been going through a decade of enshitification.
So, in a sense our "craft" no longer matters, but what really happens is that the repetitive know-how has become commoditized. We still need people to do creative work, but what is not clear is how many such people we will need. After all, at least in short term, most people build their career by perfecting procedural work because transferring the know-how and the underlying whys is very expensive to human. For the long term, though, I'm optimistic that engineers just get an amazing tool and will use it create more opportunities that demand more people.
C was explicitly designed to make it simple to write a compiler
To me this doesn't feel that many steps above using a genetic algorithm to generate a compiler that can compile the kernel.
If we think back to pre-AI programming times, did anyone really want this as a solution to programming problems? Maybe I'm alone in this, but I always thought the problem was figuring out how to structure programs in such a way that humans can understand and reason about them, so we can have a certain level of confidence in their correctness. This is super important for long-lived programs, where we need to keep making changes. And no, tests are not sufficient for that.
Of course, all programs have bugs, but there's a qualitative difference between a program designed to be understood, and a program that is effectively a black box that was generated by an LLM.
There's no reason to think that at some point, computers won't be able to do this well, but at the very least the current crop of LLMs don't seem to be there.
> and now they can churn out millions of code easily.
It's funny how we suddenly shifted from making fun of managers who think programmer's should be measured by the number of lines of code they generated, to praising LLMs for the same thing. Why did this happen? Because just like managers, programmers letting LLMs write the code aren't reading and don't understand the output, and therefore the only real measure they have for "productivity" is lines of code generated.
Note that I'm not suggesting that using AI as a tool to aid in software development is a bad thing. I just don't think letting a machine write the software for us is going to be a net win.
The difference is that the computer only talks back to you as code because you’re paying its owners, with you not being part of the owners. I find it really baffling that people put up with this. What will you do when Alphabet or Altman will demand 10 times the money out of you fir the privilege of their computer talking to you in programming code?
How they run their business is none of my business. I can download the weights right now and use them as I see fit under the open source license terms.
Google Maps was never a self contained binary you could download. But even now it remains free to use.
That’s the thing, us as programmers are supposed to be creators/makers, not mere consumers/users, but I do agree that that has been changing as of late.
> us as programmers are supposed to be creators/makers, not mere consumers/users
But that's a false dichotomy. As a programmer I am very much a consumer of the language I use, the IDE, the compiler, and of most of my dependencies. (to say nothing of the OS and the hardware).
I, and I'd wager most people around here, haven't and are aren't individually building at all layers of that stack at once.
That was the layman version of computing, something shown to the masses in movies like War Games and popular media, one that we mocked.
I also lived through the FOSS peak. The current proprietary / black-box / energy lock in would be seen as the stuff of nightmares.
Maybe they made us feel magic, but actual magic is the opposite of what I want computers to be. The “magic” for me was that computers were completely scrutable and reason-able, and that you could leverage your reasoning abilities to create interesting things with them, because they were (after some learning effort) scrutable. True magic, on the other hand, is inscrutable, it’s a thing that escapes explanation, that can’t be reasoned about. LLMs are more like that latter magic, and that’s not what I seek in computers.
> We're literally living in the 1980s fantasy where you could talk to your computer and it had a personality.
I always preferred the Star-Trek-style ship computers that didn’t exhibit personality, that were just neutral and matter-of-fact. Computers with personality tend to be exhausting and annoying. Please let me turn it off. Computers with personality can be entertaining characters in a story, but that doesn’t mean I want them around me as the tools I have to use.
The fact that LLMs are based on a network of simple matrix multiplications doesn’t change that. That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand.
Right, which is the point: LLMs are much more like human coworkers than compilers in terms of how you interact with them. Nobody would say that there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly.
That said, I do like having an LLM that I can treat like the crappy bosses on TV treat their employees. When it gets something totally wrong I can yell at it and it'll magically figure out the right solution, but still keep a chipper personality. That doesn't work with humans.
You can be professional and collaborate productively at work with people who you don't like at a personal level and have no intention to socialize with. The Mythbusters were the best example for this.
I get along great with all colleagues but I stopped joining them for coffee and watercooler smalltalk since we don't vibe and have nothing in common, so not only is it a waste of my time, it's also an energy drain for me to focus and fake interest in forced social interactions. But that doesn't mean we can't be productive together at technical stuff. I do think my PoV resonates with most people.
Human coworkers are much more predictable. A workplace where people act similarly to LLM would be a complete zoo. Imagine asking for an endpoint modification and the result is a broken backend. Or brainstorming with a PM and the reply are "you're absolutely right, whatever I was saying was completely wrong, but let me repeat it in a different manner".
As if this isn't incredibly common..?
"...there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly."
Because you CAN predict coworker behavior to a useful point. Ex, they'll probably reply to that email on Monday. They'll probably show you a video that you find less amusing than they do.
With LLMs you can't be quite sure whether they will make something up, forget a key detail, hide a mistake that will obviously be found out when everything breaks, etc. Stupid things that most employable people wouldn't do, like building a car and forgetting the wheels.
Specifically they are like Julius, the colleague managers like but is a drag on everyone else.
Yes, and computers were something that gave you powerful freedom. You could make a computer do anything it was physically able to as long as your mind could follow up. Computers followed logic, they didn't have opinions, they gave you full control of themselves and you would have unlimited control.
I agree!. One criticism I've heard is that half my colleagues don't write their own words anymore. They use ChatGPT to do it for them. Does this mean we've "lost" something? On the contrary! Those people probably would have spoken far fewer words into existence in the pre-AI era. But AI has enabled them to put pages and pages of text out into the world each week: posts and articles where there were previously none. How can anyone say that's something we've lost? That's something we've gained!
It's not only the golden era of code. It's the golden era of content.
But all the words sound more like each other than ever. It’s not just blah, it’s blah.
And why should I bother reading what someone else “writes”? I can generate the same text myself for free.
Are you for real? Quantity is not equal to Quality.
I'll be sure to dump a pile of trash in your living room. There wasn't much there before, but now there is lots of stuff. Better right?
It's because of the way that I use the tools, and I have the luxury of being a craftsman, as opposed to a "TSA agent."
But then, I don't get paid to do this stuff, anymore. In fact, I deliberately avoid putting myself into positions, where money changes hands for my craft. I know how fortunate I am, to be in this position, so I don't say it to aggravate folks that aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
I also can't believe it's actually happening. ;)
Frankly, I have my doubts about the utter efficiency of LLMs writing code unattended; it will take quite some time before whatever comes after the current crop learns to do that efficiently and reliably. (Check out how many years went between first image generation demos and today's SOTA.) But the vector is obvious: humans would have to speak a higher-level language to computers, and hand-coding Typescript is going to be as niche in 10 years as today is hand-coding assembly.
This adds some kinds of fun, but also removes some other kinds of fun. There's a reason why people often pick something like PICO-8 to write games for fun, rather than something like Unreal Engine. So software development becomes harder because the developer has to work on more and more complex things, faster, and with fewer chances to study the moving parts to a comfortable depth.
I liked programming, it was fun, and I understood it. Now it's gone.
Only if our socioeconomic model changes.
Certainly not. Computers are still magic, but much of that magic is now controlled and being restricted by someone other than you.
Today most people's only computer is a cell phone, which is heavily locked down and designed for media consumption and to collect and give away every scrap of their personal/private data. Most people's desktop computers aren't much better. They are continuously used by others against the interests of the people who paid for them, sometimes explicitly keeping them from doing things they want or limiting what they can install.
People are increasingly ignorant of how computers work in ways that were never possible when you had to understand them to use them. SoCs mean that users, and even the operating system they use, aren't fully aware of what the devices are doing.
People have lost control of the computers they paid for and their own data. They now have to beg a small number of companies for anything they want (including their own data on the cloud). We're heading toward a future where you'll need a submit to a retinal scan just to view a website.
Computing today is more adversarial, restricted, opaque, centralized, controlled, and monitored than it has been in a very long time. "My computer talks to me" is not making up for that.
Even as someone concerned with the issues you mention, the shift happening now feels pretty magical to me. I can only imagine how non-technical people must feel.
For example, say phones become more and more locked down and invasive. Technically you can choose not to have a phone, but how are you meant to function in today's society without a phone? Basically everything of importance assumes you have a phone. Technically you could make your own phone, I guess, but that's very difficult.
I don't think you can reasonably make the argument that because technically everyone can make their own choices, we should be ok with whatever status quo in society.
I don't think we should be ok with the status quo, and I think complaining about issues can be a catalyst for change, but rather than just complain about the state of affairs, I'm pointing out that alternatives exist, so it's on us to enact change.
TBH, I'm pessimistic about my words making a difference, but I want to promote independent/DIY mindset anyway. It's ironic that the frontier LLMs are proprietary platforms, yet they're enabling more independence to their users. Regardless, if everything goes to shit, we can still opt out and go back to the previous generation's lifestyle. No mobile phones and moving at the speed of snail mail doesn't sound all that bad, though I'd sure miss Google Maps.
I often get asked by friends and family "can I get rid of annoyance X" or "can I have feature Y" on their Android phones, usually because they see that I've done it on my phone [0]. The answer is always "yes, I can set that up for you, but this will take an hour, I need to wipe all your data and a bunch of your apps will stop working".
There is no reason it should be like that. That was a choice by the manufacturers. They developed these DRM features and actively market them to developers - to the point where I can't submit an update to my little bus app without getting a prompt to add SafetyNet to it. They even somehow concinced pentesters to put "no cert pinning, root check and remote attestation" into their reports, so bank and government apps are the worst offenders.
It's not like people decided they prefer closed to open. They prefer working to non-working. And open platforms were broken intentionally by the developers of the closed ones.
It's like saying Americans all love their cars and simply decided not to use public transport. No, their public transport was crippled to the point of uselessness and their neighbourhoods were built in a way that makes public transport unfeasible. Cars work for them and trains don't. This was not their choice and it's painfully obvious when you see them go literally anywhere else on the planet and be amazed at how great trains are.
[0] Things like: global adblock, removing bloatware, floating windows or splitsceen, miracast, slide for brightness/volume, modded apps, lockscreen gestures, app instances, working shared clipboard, NFC UID emulation, automatic tethering, audio EQ...
This sums up many things perfectly. I'll be stealing this.
Sure people will care about things on paper or in conversation, but my point is that most don't care enough to do anything about it.
> There is no reason it should be like that
Most businesses exist primarily to make money, so they have all the reasons for their bad designs and behavior.
> They prefer working to non-working
Of course, but TANSTAAFL. We keep rewarding the providers with our money and data, so the beatings will continue if you want to keep up with the Joneses.
I hear the point you're making with the comparison to transportation, but you can't just build a road or a railway, while you can absolutely build software.
Most people living through golden ages might not know it. Many workers in Industrial Revolution saw a decline in relative wages. Many in the Roman Empire were enslaved or impoverished. That doesn’t mean history doesn’t see these as golden ages, where golden age is defined loosely as a broad period of enhanced prosperity and productivity for a group of people.
For all its downsides, pointed out amply above, the golden age of computing started 100 years ago and hasn’t ceased yet.
Yeah! Why weren't all those children with mangled limbs more optimistic about the future? Why weren't they singing the praises of the golden age around them? Do you think it would have resulted in a golden age for anyone except a very small few if the people hadn't spoken out against the abuses of the greedy industrialists and robber barons and united against them?
If you can't see what's wrong with what's happening in front of you today and you can't see ahead to what's coming at you in the future you're going to be cut very badly by those "edge cases". Instead of blinding ourselves to them, I'd recommend getting into those weeds now so that we can start pulling them up by their roots.
Only 14% of Americans described themselves as "very happy" in recent studies, a sharp decline from 31% in 2018.
woohoo we did it, our neighbors are being sent to prison camps who work with the "golden age" bringers. Go team. Nice "golden age" you got there, peasant.
Most people don't care how the toaster or microwave work, only that they do. Same for the show me movies boxes in the living rooms. And, really, most people shouldn't have to care.
This isn't to dismiss privacy concerns or even right to own/repair... let alone "free" internet. It's just that most people shouldn't have to care about most things.
I can now direct these things and it’s glorious.
The original NES controller only contains a single shift register - no other active components.
Today, a wireless thing will have more code than one would want to ever read, much less comprehend. Even a high level diagram of the hardware components involved is quite complex.
Sure, we gained convenience, but at great cost.
you won't feel you've lost something if you've never had it.
sorry.
We literally are not, and we’d do well to stop using such hyperbole. The 1980s fantasy was of speaking to a machine which you could trust to be correct with a high degree of confidence. No one was wishing they could talk to a wet sock that’ll confidently give you falsehoods and when confronted (even if they were right) will bow down and always respond with “you’re absolutely right”.
But computing is increasingly not-for-you. Your phone will do what apple allows you to do. Your online activity is tracked and used to form a profile of your actions and behaviors. And the checks and balances - if any - are weak and compromised because of the commercial or government interest that want things that way.
the simplest example might be computer games. In the 80's it was private. In 2026 it is routinely a psychological cash register and a surveillance system.
I really like that linux with all its imperfections seems to counteract a lot of this.
I can't empathize with the complaint that we've "lost something" at all. We're on the precipice of something incredible. That's not to say there aren't downsides (WOPR almost killed everyone after all), but we're definitely in a golden age of computing.