> I'm sure AI can easily get to the 99%, but does it help with the rest?
Yes the AI can help with 100% is it. But the operator of the AI needs to be able to articulate this to the AI .
I've been in this position, where I had no choice but to use AI to write code to fix bugs in another party's codebase, then PR the changes back to the codebase owners. In this case it was vendor software that we rely on which the vendor hadn't fixed critical bugs in yet. And exactly as you described, my PR ultimately got rejected because even though it fixed the bugs in the immediate sense, it presented other issues due to not integrating with the external frameworks the vendor used for their dev processes. At which point it was just easier for the vendor to fix the software their way instead of accept my PR. But the point is that I could have made the PR correct in the first place, if I as the AI operator had the knowledge needed to articulate these more detailed and nuanced requirements to the AI. Since I didn't have this information then the AI generated code that worked but didn't meet the vendors spec. This type of situation is incredibly easy to fall into and is a good example of why you still need a human at the wheel on projects to set the guidance but you don't necessarily need the human to be writing every line of code.
I don't like the situation much but this is the reality of it. We're basically just code reviewers for AI now
> Go should have similar difficulties with cross compilation
It doesn't. Go code can be cross compiled for any OS and any CPU arch from any supported system. And it comes out of the box that way. You don't have to go out of your way to install or configure anything extra to do it.
We’re not talking about go here. This is true for rust. The issue is building against C libraries and APIs for a different OS. Unless go has done some magic I’m unaware of its the same problem, just cgo isn’t super popular in the Go community
This is such a big deal and I wish more people talked about it in these types of blog posts.
I used to be a Python programmer and there were two things that destroyed every project;
- managing Python dependencies
- inability to reason about the input and output types for functions and inability to enforce it ; in Python any function can accept any input value of any type and can return any type of value of any type.
These issues are not too bad if it's a small project and you're the sole developer. But as projects get larger and require multiple developers, it turns into a mess quickly.
Go solved all these issues. Makes deployment so much easier. In all the projects I've done I estimate that more than half have zero dependencies outside of the standard library. And unlike Python, you don't have to "install" Go or it's libraries on the server you plan to run your program on. Fully static self contained executable binary with zero external files needed is amazing, and the fact that you can cross compile for any OS+ CPU arch out of the box on any supported system is a miracle.
The issues described by the original post seem like small potatoes compared to the benefits I've gotten by shifting from Python over to Go
I'm an og Pebble fan, I owned every one of the originals, but I'm PISSED because last year they ran a Kickstarter for the recently released Pebble Time 2 and Pebble 2 Duo; I spent $300+ to get both even though I'm not really that thrilled about them I just wanted to support the project. Now after those two have started shipping and I just got the 2 Duo they announce THIS which is way better! Wtf why didn't they tell us in the beginning that they were planning the Round 2? I would have just held off and only ordered that instead. Feels like I got scammed
You can switch your order. They anticipated that some folks would want the Round instead and said that entire reason they announced this before the Time 2 is shipped is so you can change your order to Round if you want to
Huh? There was no Kickstarter, just pre-orders. And when they announced the Round they said that anyone who preordered a PT2 can flip their pre-order and keep their place in line.
My guess is that part of the reason they decided to make the round is that they got so much interest in Pebbles in general, and so many requests for the Round specifically. I don't think they would have wanted to take the risk from the beginning without knowing the demand.
before long we will all just be sitting in cafés alone staring at each other alone and together we will all just take in the experience of being alone with each other in a café
> However the answerers on So are not paid. Why should tyhy waste their time on a user who has not shown they have put any effort in and asks a question that they have already answered several times before?
This is kind of a weird sentiment to put forth, because other sites namely Quora actually do pay their Answerer's. An acquintance of mine was at one time a top "Question Answerer" on Quora and got some kind of compensation for their work.
So this is not the Question-Asker's problem. This is the problem of Stack Overflow and the people answering the questions.
its not just you, I saw this happen to others' posts many times and it happened to me several times
I gave up on Stack Overflow when my jobs started requiring me to use Terraform and suddenly every time I posted a well researched and well formed question about Terraform, it would immediately get flagged and closed with responses that "Terraform is not programming and thus questions about Terraform should not be posted on Stack Overflow", which was insane to me because Stack Overflow has a "terraform" tag and category. If you visit it, you will see tons of users trying to post valid questions only to have the mods shut them down angrily.
Yeah. You're not a real programmer. It's just terraform. You're a stupids and we're smaht, and you should go off into your little corner and cry while we jerk each other off about how smart we are.
Gee, I wonder why people don't want to use the site?
yes I noticed this as well, over the past few years, its happened again and again that the "Top Answer" ends up being useless and I found myself constantly sorting the answers by "Recent" to find the ones that are actually useful and relevant
Seriously. Hacker News is so adamant on Linux it's almost comical. I mean, I get it... this is a site for developers. But I'm a developer and MacOS is great for writing software, the hardware is better than everything else on the market by far, and I don't have to mess around with my computer just to get certain drivers or whatever to work.
I spent $1000 on a Macbook Air, it instantly works with zero headache, has way more app support than Linux, is super fast, and so on.
If I want to play games, I bought the cheapest gaming laptop from Best Buy for like $500 a few years ago and only use that computer to play games.
Yes the AI can help with 100% is it. But the operator of the AI needs to be able to articulate this to the AI .
I've been in this position, where I had no choice but to use AI to write code to fix bugs in another party's codebase, then PR the changes back to the codebase owners. In this case it was vendor software that we rely on which the vendor hadn't fixed critical bugs in yet. And exactly as you described, my PR ultimately got rejected because even though it fixed the bugs in the immediate sense, it presented other issues due to not integrating with the external frameworks the vendor used for their dev processes. At which point it was just easier for the vendor to fix the software their way instead of accept my PR. But the point is that I could have made the PR correct in the first place, if I as the AI operator had the knowledge needed to articulate these more detailed and nuanced requirements to the AI. Since I didn't have this information then the AI generated code that worked but didn't meet the vendors spec. This type of situation is incredibly easy to fall into and is a good example of why you still need a human at the wheel on projects to set the guidance but you don't necessarily need the human to be writing every line of code.
I don't like the situation much but this is the reality of it. We're basically just code reviewers for AI now
reply