Thread

1. Arubis · 1789753677 · focus · HN ↗

   Yes, and: the most important time to use your brain isn't in the loop.

   That _is_ valuable, and will remain so, but the temptation to turn it off is there because the loop is good and getting better at what it does. Once you're in the loop, with the rare high-value exception of catching total mistakes nad redirecting, you're mostly choosing between similar-yet-reasonable options. This isn't so much right-vs-wrong as relativistic optimization. Letting the loop do the work will get you a mediocre result quickly, and that's usually fine.

   The most important time to use your brain is _before the prompt_. Once you engage with your LLM and agent, you start biasing yourself, and its reasonable suggestions constrain your visibility into other options, other worlds.

   First, use your brain. Then write the prompt.

   1. xendo · 1789754390 · focus · HN ↗

      I don't agree. I'm recently a huge believer in Programming as Theory Building. The software creation itself is the part that makes you understand what you are building. It's impossible to understand things before you start building them, initial prompt can help you explore, but the idea that after that you can lean back is ridiculous. Most or maybe even all successful software projects are still heavily relying on the best software engineers. That's why anthropic and others are still hiring SDEs.

      1. CamperBob2 · 1789754481 · focus · HN ↗

         That's great, but you and your family will go hungry as a result. If not this year, next year.

         Your stance isn't new, if it's any comfort. I heard (and probably said) exactly the same thing when C compilers started getting good enough to eliminate the need for most assembly coding.

         1. pfisch · 1789755108 · focus · HN ↗

            So it is your opinion that in the future llms will take extremely vague specs and turn them into fully functional software that actually works the way the prompter wanted it to?

            Does the prompter sit there with the llm all day answering the 1000s of questions necessary to make what he wanted, and the prompter then spent days testing it to make sure what he initially thought he wanted is actually what he wanted?

            Then for every additional feature and integration the prompter will do this again?

            Are we going to make a new job title for that? Should we call that job a programmer?

            Tools are tools. Better tools let us do more faster, but they are still tools.

            1. CamperBob2 · 1789755629 · focus · HN ↗

               Are we going to make a new job title for that? Should we call that job a programmer?

               Works for me! The most popular programming languages in 2030 will be English and Mandarin. You don't have to like it, you just have to deal with it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.