Hacker News Reader

Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

I think it's a great tool but I think a generous interpretation of the OP is that it's solving problems that aren't necessary in the context of a better overall system/process.

A woodworking example is that a planer is great tool that helps you make nice flat surfaces. But, to a certain extent, it's a downstream fix that wouldn't be necessary if a carpenter was using a better overall process. I.e., if their upstream process for cutting/ripping wood made nice flat surfaces to begin with, the awesomeness of the planer becomes moot. (Apologies to the legitimate woodworkers if this analogy is off).

Where tools like GPT becomes invaluable is when you have no control over those upstream processes but still need to get the job done. But leveraging a tool for a downstream fix when upstream fixes are possible is usually a less-good approach to creating good systems.

View on HN

You mean it "only" solves problems in the real world and not in the ideal world?

That's not what I mean, unless you assume that you have no control over other elements of the process.

To torture the woodworking analogy, your assumption is that the carpenter has no control over ripping the boards. In some instances that may very well be the case, but there will also the instances where the carpenter does have influence over creating the boards, or even wholesale control over ripping them. In those cases, using a planer to fix poorly ripped boards may not be the best approach.

How often do you actually have control over the entire process of anything? Even website development, unless you’re going to handle raw TCP sockets, you’re going to build on top of someone else’s tools one way or another. And in a business world, you almost always have to deal with other teams, other people, other priorities. Even when you run a company, not all of your employees and partners can always do things exactly the way you want. Having a flexible tool that works in the real world on real world data on top of real world processes is incredibly valuable.

I think you're engaging in some dichotomous thinking. I'm not making the claim you'd have to have "control over the entire process". What I'm cautioning against is just looking to the tail end of a process and assuming that's where you need to add leverage.

Even in your examples, yes, you have to work with other teams. "Control" doesn't mean you have dictatorial control over those teams. But it does sometimes mean you have build relationships, leverage what you can, and explain the value to those that do have some modicum of control. The idea that we just throw our hands up and jump to workarounds is often an excuse for taking the short-term easy at the expense of a better long-term solution.

I like your planer analogy, though it is indeed off for woodworkers, but in a way that’s rather nuanced, so it doesn’t inhibit getting the idea across to normal people who don’t know a lot about intricacies or working with wood.

There are a couple of reasons why it would be hard to change the upstream process to not necessitate planers. The main one is that logs are typically ripped into boards when the wood is still green, and in the process of drying, boards change shape and dimensions: they bow, cup, warp, and shrink, and you might still need a planer to bring them back to flatness and to desired final thickness.

I guess the only way to change it would be to rip them when they are green... dry them to a decently low moisture content and then plane them again. it's still a bit off since wood is never static and the differential in moisture between the shop and your shop can also change the wood. you really do need to dimension it after it has stabilized in your shop for a spell.

Nope.

Cost of implementing better process for all carpenters is significantly higher, than all carpenters still using bad process + _one_ AI being able to clean it for carpenter, plumber, translator, developer (you name it, you got it).

Not even entering laziness/corposlowness gardens etc.

This is an misunderstanding of how processes typically work for a couple of reasons. For one, it assumes the "cost of implementing better process for all carpenters is significantly higher". This may be the case for Tao, where he has limited control over the inputs, but probably not the case for the woodworking analogy, for a variety of reasons. You are essentially advocating for "rework" to fix problems which is considered a unnecessary waste in process design.

"Corposlowness" is just another name for "bad processes". It supports the claim rather than negates it. Using AI to overcome bad bureaucracy makes it a workaround, not an idealized process. What often happens when implementing workarounds rather than good processes is that the workaround can create bloat and waste of its own and overtime, not really fix the problem. Like hiring more administrators for a large organization, they can take on a life of their own, eventually becoming divorced from the problem they were intended to solve.

Again, I'm not saying that AI is misapplied in Tao's case. I'm just cautioning that it's not a panacea for bad processes. In many ways, it can be misused as a band-aid for bad processes, just like creating excess inventory is a band-aid for bad quality control.

you have better explained my own point, haha

i still don't get it. i only understand libraries of congress and cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com