Many people feel threatened by the rapid advancements in LLMs, fearing that their skills may become obsolete, and in turn act irrationally. To navigate this change effectively, we must keep open minds, keep adaptable, and embrace continuous learning.
I'm not threatened by LLMs taking my job as much as they are taking away my sanity. Every time I tell someone no and they come back to me with a "but copilot said.." it's followed by something entirely incorrect it makes me want to autodefenestrate.
Many comments discussing LLMs involve emotions, sure. :) Including, obviously, comments in favour of LLMs.
But most discussion I see is vague and without specificity and without nuance.
Recognising the shortcomings of LLMs makes comments praising LLMs that much more believable; and recognising the benefits of LLMs makes comments criticising LLMs more believable.
I'd completely believe anyone who says they've found the LLM very helpful at greenfield frontend tasks, and I'd believe someone who found the LLM unable to carry out subtle refactors on an old codebase in a language that's not Python or JavaScript.
it isn't irrational to act in self-interest. If LLM threatens someone's livelihood, it matters not that it helps humanity overall one bit - they will oppose it. I don't blame them. But i also hope that they cannot succeed in opposing it.
It's irrational to genuinely hold false beliefs about capabilities of LLMs. But at this point I assume around half of the skeptics are emotionally motivated anyway.
I’m a big fan of the idea of an Office of the CTO group reporting directly to the CTO that helps with prototyping greenfield projects and exploring innovative ideas. I believe a group like this would be beneficial for larger organizations, like the one I work in. There are numerous opportunities for market disruption, but it becomes increasingly challenging to make bold bets as the company expands. If I had the power to do so, I’d set this up at my company asap.
If that group is necessary then it's a damning indictment of the product/engineering culture. The CTO's job should be to fix the broken culture, not try to side-step it.
Hard disagree. Culture isn’t the problem, org structure is. You can call it an experiment or even a hack. Every team is already innovating within their scope, and splitting becomes easier as that scope grows.
What is too much is asking an Engineering Manager to start a completely independent product line that may go nowhere. It’s far more effective to rely on senior, staff+ engineers who don’t need management and have experience taking things from 0 to 1. They can build an MVP quick. Once we see real signals of PMF, we can then build a team around it (or drop it)
You’re right but you’re in the wrong place to argue this. Bezos has a talk where he famously talks about instituting weblabs and A/B testing because he doesn’t want to be a decision bottleneck and wants low stakes experiments with little friction.
But HN now is full of people completely removed from any kind of entrepreneurial mindset, people who aren’t “hackers” even in the most generous sense. They will not agree.
Keyboard warriors is probably the best descriptor of HN demo now.
Nokia had exactly this kind of CTO office during the 2005 - 2012 years when they lost the entire smartphone market.
The CTO fiddled with greenfield projects that had no path to products while the house burned down.
The best that can be said about it is that inventions outside of the product helped beef up Nokia’s patent portfolio, which played a role in the company surviving the post-phone years and transforming into a pure network company. But they lost a trillion-dollar opportunity and shrunk into an average B2B enterprise.
well you say that, but blackberry did exactly what you're saying Nokia should have done and we see how much that helped. Truth is iPhone was so far ahead technologically, no other company had a chance. At least Nokia still exists today, which can't be said about majority of other mobile phone manufacturers of that era.
Yes, but it wasn't iPhone that ate their markets, it was Android. Nokia and Blackberry were both at the top because they had their own operating systems, and while they were losing the high end market to iPhone, they would've kept the middle and low end markets where the volume was.
Android changed all that, all of the sudden all their competitors got a good OS for free. Commoditize your complement, Google took their markets.
Traditionally that was R&D and its own department.
Having a CTO pet group isn’t the best use of the CTOs time. If you want to have better architecture and explore greenfield projects, you need an organization that supports R&D through cross functional groups.
A CTO should NOT be doing greenfield projects. A CTO should be setting technical vision and strategy for the entire company.
That’s a good point. Perhaps where this group lives depends on your organization. Unfortunately, the innovative ideas aren’t necessarily coming from product where I work.
So you're argueing "prototyping greenfield projects and exploring innovative ideas" is something that should come solely out of engineering with no Product input?
It’s a shame that the source code isn’t commented and documented more. At the very least, I would see it being helpful to add some documentation for every CPU op code being emulated.
Forbidding LLM to write comments and docstrings (preferrably enforced by build and commit hook) is one of the best "hacks" for using that thing. LLM cannot help itself but emit poisonous comments.
I used to worry that using LLMs to code would let them use my code and train on my hard work. Then I realised how bad my code is, so I'm probably singlehandedly holding off an agi catastrophe.
Meh. No human has written the horrors llm produces. At least I am yet to see codebase like that. Let me attempt a theatrical reenactment:
// Use buffer that is large enough to hold any possible value. Avoid using JSON configuration, this optimizes codebase and prevents possible security exploits!
size_t len = 32;
// this function does not call "sort" utility using shell anymore, but instead uses optimized library function "sort" for extreme perfomance improvement!!!
void get_permutations() {
... and so on. It basically uses comments as a wall to scribble grandiose graffiti about it's valiant conquests in following explicit instruction after fifth repeat and not commiting egregious violence agains common sense.
And since it's vibe coded, no one knows what the opcodes are. LLM won't remember. Human has no comments. Human can't trust post-hoc LLM-generated comments because they're poisonous.
If function of vibecode is not self-evident, dispose of it.
Or, to put it differently, having vibe comment does not free you of responsibility to inspect actual vibe code.
If code contradicts comments, LLM is as likely to go by comments. It is bad enough to have heaps of dead, unused code. Comments make everything much worse.
Even if you try to get them to not, they will still overcomment the code. Or at least overcomment it from the perspective of a human. From the perspective of the LLM, I suspect the comments are necessary for it to be able to get the code output correct.
It's also a discoverability tool. If the code has good docstrings and decent naming for functions/variables it's a lot easier for the LLM to find the correct places to edit.
I don’t know you personally, but I think humility matters a lot. You mentioned that you’re “pretty smart,” and this may very well be true. I’m involved in interviewing at my work, and one thing I’ve learned is that raw intelligence alone isn’t what stands out most.
I consider myself a hard worker, but realistically fairly mediocre in terms of pure skill or ability (and that’s okay, I’m doing fine). What matters more to me is that I’m always trying to learn and grow. I tend to find it offputting when candidates describe themselves as “experts” or “highly skilled” in technologies or languages. It’s possible to be an expert, but usually that comes with very narrow depth. These self-declared experts are often a red flag.
I’ve been coding in C# for nearly 20 years and have been using AWS technologies for nearly a decade, and I still wouldn’t call myself an expert. I find it a bit amusing when self-declared experts cannot confidently explain the inner workings of the garbage collector or the CLR in great detail. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing those things, but declaring yourself an expert sets a high bar that often doesn’t hold up.
Personally, I much prefer candidates who are humble, honest about their strengths and gaps, and clearly motivated to keep learning.
I am hoping for advancements in cartilage growth. I underwent microfracture surgery in my knee and will eventually need a replacement unless we make progress in this field. I would prefer to avoid knee replacement if possible because I enjoy being active. I am hopeful we’re getting close.
Anecdotal, but I was going in for carpal tunnel work and ran into an older gentleman, probably early 70s, that had just gone through a knee replacement a week earlier. He was walking around on it and said he wasn't really in any pain.
I have heard great things about knee replacements. Unfortunately, I’m relatively young (late 30s). If I were to get a replacement now, I’d likely need another one when I’m older. Additionally, I imagine getting an artificial knee replacement would make you no longer a candidate for lab-grown replacements. There is an option already where they can grow your cartilage in a lab, but it’s quite expensive, and my insurance will not cover it.
In the summer my knees were so wrecked I could barely make it up and down the stairs. My GP first thought it was an inflammation and prescribed something for that, but when I went back after a couple of weeks he said the cartilage may have worn off and prescribed me Flexofytol. It may be placebo effect, but between taking it a bit easier, cycling more, and the flexofytol, my knees are the best they've been since I injured them in the first place.
reply