I like the analogy, even if I find it a bit depressing. However, this caused me pause:
> Instead of the most important question being “how to build this”, or “can we build this”, now the most important question is “what should we build”.
Do people really think software is just a matter of paying for the tokens now? If that were true we should be able to ask for a web browser that is faster, leaner, more secure and more capable than all existing browsers, or otherwise be told why it can't be done. Given that the standards are all written down I shouldn't need to give any further direction. I would have thought AI companies would have tried this before trying something like Navier-Stokes.
Treating code as a low-entropy amorphous blob is a quick way to see bridges collapse.
It works for concrete because its tensile and compressive strengths are well known for a given composition, but for high-entropy products like software you pretty much need to also generate a formal proof to have any assurances.
Which, ignoring the production costs and assuming that the proof is in fact correct, is only ever as good as the specification.
If you were looking for a physical analogy for software development, it's closer to growing crystals than pouring concrete.
globular-toast · · focus · HN ↗
> Instead of the most important question being “how to build this”, or “can we build this”, now the most important question is “what should we build”.
Do people really think software is just a matter of paying for the tokens now? If that were true we should be able to ask for a web browser that is faster, leaner, more secure and more capable than all existing browsers, or otherwise be told why it can't be done. Given that the standards are all written down I shouldn't need to give any further direction. I would have thought AI companies would have tried this before trying something like Navier-Stokes.
za_creature · · focus · HN ↗
It works for concrete because its tensile and compressive strengths are well known for a given composition, but for high-entropy products like software you pretty much need to also generate a formal proof to have any assurances.
Which, ignoring the production costs and assuming that the proof is in fact correct, is only ever as good as the specification.
If you were looking for a physical analogy for software development, it's closer to growing crystals than pouring concrete.