Thread

1. miranaproarrow · 1790105899 · focus · HN ↗

   My manager who vibe coded our entire webapp in claude design. Has difficulty understanding why its still not production ready.

   My job is to wire to our backend data, and a lot of these wiring require me to be in there and actually think about the features. These take time, and I just haven't figure out a way to speed this process up with Claude.

   1. godwinson__4-8 · 1790108494 · focus · HN ↗

      Why is this reassuring?

      Why won't smarter and cheaper models in the future be able to automate this part for your manager as well? How novel is the feature set? Is it he has a knowledge gap or the model is incapable of something? What expertise are you bringing to bear that is beyond the scope of a future harness/model? Why wouldn't such a model simply fill in the blanks for your management, perhaps observing a diff of whatever you did? How do you verify the correctness of your thinking? Why could a future model not replicate this process?

      I am just very puzzled by these sort of takes as we approach the end of 2026.

      1. Axsuul · 1790109401 · focus · HN ↗

         Why isn't a LLM as smart as a human? Therein lies your problem.

         1. godwinson__4-8 · 1790110128 · focus · HN ↗

            A calculator used to be a human job. Are calculators smarter than humans?

            I'm asking why is it reassuring about his job? Surely your big human brain can understand to be automated away doesn't mean the machine is "smart as a human" whatever that means. There is probably not a lot of utility in comparing synthetic and organic intelligence from such a reductive perspective.

            Factory workers got automated by machines. Is a robotic arm smarter than a human? Is a tractor smarter than a bovine?

            My question is simply what is he doing that is so "smart" or novel that it cannot be automated or mechanized. This should not be so hard to understand.

            1. Axsuul · 1790119132 · focus · HN ↗

               Factory workers that did repetitive things that didn't require any thinking got automated away by machines. But there are still factory workers today that do things that require thinking.

               Machines don't go deep on problems, humans do. A machine has no will or purpose to solve a novel problem on their own. Hope that answers your question.

               1. godwinson__4-8 · 1790138520 · focus · HN ↗

                  It doesn't need will? Voyager has gotten farther than likely any human will ever reach. It doesn't have will. How did it happen? Because human will is not the only animus in the universe.

                  How are these math problems being solved? AI just needs to recursively self prompt. Why does it need a human will? As long as the power keeps flowing and the recursion is resilient, what computational problem discoverable by a human is out of reach?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.