Hacker News Reader

Comment by baxtr | Hacker News Reader

Isn’t most standard software these days a permutation of things already done before?

Author here: it's not even clear that agents can reliably permute their training data (I'm not saying that it's impossible or never happens but that it's not something we can take for granted as a reliable feature of agentic coding).

As I mentioned in one of the footnotes in the post:

> People often tell me "you would get better results if you generated code in a more mainstream language rather than Haskell" to which I reply: if the agent has difficulty generating Haskell code then that suggests agents aren't capable of reliably generalizing beyond their training data.

If an agent can't consistently apply concepts learned in one language to generate code in another language, then that calls into question how good they are at reliably permuting the training dataset in the way you just suggested.

It can also mean that the other programming language is above the cognitive abilities of the LLM

> if the agent has difficulty generating Haskell code then that suggests agents aren't capable of reliably generalizing beyond their training data.

doesn't that apply to flesh-and-bone developers? ask someone who's only working in python to implement their current project in haskell and I'm not so sure you'll get very satisfying results.

But the model has seen pretty much all the public Haskell code around, and possibly been trained to write it in different settings.

> doesn't that apply to flesh-and-bone developers?

No, it does not. If you have a developer that knows C++, Java, Haskell, etc. and you ask that developer to re-implement something from one language to another the result will be good. That is because a developer knows how to generalize from one language (e.g. C++) and then write something concrete in the other (e.g. Haskell).

One language in the same category to another in the same category, yes. "Category" here being something roughly like "scripting, compiled imperative, functional". However my experience is that if you want to translate to another category and the target developer has no experience in it, you can expect very bad results. C++ to Haskell is among the most pessimal such translations. You end up with the writing X in Y problem.

The hard bit of programming has never been knowing the symbols to tell the computer what to do. It is more difficult to use a completely unknown language, sure, but the paradigms and problem solving approaches are identical and thats the actual work, not writing the correct words.

Saying that the paradigms of Python and Haskell are the same makes it sound like you don’t know either or both of those languages. They are not just syntactically different. The paradigms literally are different. Python is a high level duck typed oo scripting language and Haskell is a non-oo strongly typed functional programming language. They’re extremely far apart.

They are different, but on some fundamental level when you're writing code you're expressing an idea and it is still the same. The same way photograph and drawing of a cat are obviously different and they're made in vastly different ways, but still they're representations of a cat. It's all lambda calculus, turing machines, ram machines, combinator logic, posts' dominoes etc., etc. in the end.

They’re both turing complete, which make them equivalent.

Code is a description of a solution, which can be executed by a computer. You have the inputs and the outputs (we usually split the former into arguments amd environment, and we split the latter into side effects and return values). Python and Haskell are just different towers of abstraction built on the same computation land. The code may not be the same, but the relation between inputs and outputs does not change if they solve the same problem.

> The paradigms literally are different. […] They’re extremely far apart.

And yet, you can write pure-functional thunked streams in Python (and have the static type-checker enforce strong type checking), and high-level duck-typed OO with runtime polymorphism in Haskell.

The hardest part is getting a proper sum type going in Python, but ducktyping comes to the rescue. You can write `MyType = ConstructA | ConstructB | ConstructC` where each ConstructX type has a field like `discriminant: Literal[MyTypeDiscrim.A]`, but that's messy. (Technically, you can use the type itself as a discriminant, but that means you have to worry about subclasses; you can fix that by introducing an invariance constraint, or by forbidding subclasses….) It shouldn't be too hard to write a library to deal with this nicely, but I haven't found one. (https://pypi.org/project/pydantic-discriminated/ isn't quite the same thing, and its comparison table claims that everything else is worse.)

Other people have replied but to clarify my point, while two languages may operate with a focus on two seperate paradigms, the actual paradigms do not vary. OOP is still OOP whatever language you use, same for functional et al. Sure some languages are geared towards being used in certain ways, some very much so, but if you know the actual ways the language is largely irrelevant.

Your argument fails where it equates someone who only codes in one language to an LLM who is usually trained in many languages.

In my experience, a software engineer knows how to program and has experience in multiple languages. Someone with that level of experience tends to pick up new languages very quickly because they can apply the same abstract concepts and algorithms.

If an LLM that has a similar (or broader) data set of languages cannot generalise to an unknown language, then it stands to reason that it is indeed only capable of reproducing what’s already in its training data.

"that suggests agents aren't capable of reliably generalizing beyond their training data."

Yes? If they could, we would have a strong general intelligence by now and only few people are claiming this.

I am very sceptical mainstream languages will be better. I have seen plenty of bad Python from LLMs. Even with simple CRUD apps and when provided with detailed instructions.

Your argument is far too dependent on observations made about the model's ability with Haskell, which is irrelevant. The concepts in Haskell are totally different to almost any other language - you can't easily "generalize" from an imperative strict language like basically everything people really use to a lazy pure FP language that uses monads for IO like Haskell. The underlying concepts themselves are different and Haskell has never been mainstream enough for models to get good at it.

Pick a good model, let it choose its own tools and then re-evaluate.

Why is Haskell irrelevant to the argument that LLMs can't reliably permute programming knowledge from one language to another? In fact, the purity of the language and dearth of training data seems like the perfect test case to see whether concepts found in more mainstream languages are actually understood.

Because human programmers routinely fail to do that too. Haskell is an obscure language that came out of academic research. Several of the core semantics (like lazyness by default) didn't get adopted anywhere else and are only found in Haskell.

Then I would say this is another proof that LLMs lack intellect or ability to reason about universals. See https://michaelmangialardi.substack.com/i/186405810/test-4-p...

But what's the point of re-building "standard software" if it is so standard that it already exists 100 times in the training data with slight variations?

The point is the small variations

I read this attitude very often on HN. "If someone else has already built it before, your effort is a waste of time." To me, it has this "Someone else already makes money from it, go somewhere else where you dont have competition." Well, I get the drift... But... Not everyone is into getting rich. You know, some of us just have fun building things and learning while doing so. It really doesn't matter if the path has been walked before. Not everything has to be plain novelty to count.

If you do it for fun then why do you care whether an LLM can do it well or not, which was the original argument? Shouldn't matter to you in that case.

If you dont know the answer to the question you just raised, having a discussion is pretty much useless, because it is so obvious. Just because I have fun building thinks doesn't mean I don't care about the tools to do so?

See here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47435808

I'd say that's pretty much the definition of standard, yeah. And it's why you can't make a profit selling a simple ToDo app. If you expect people to pay for what you build, you have to build something that doesn't have a thousand free clones on the app store.

I politely disagree.

I think you’re conflating software and product.

A product can be a recombination of standard software components and yet be something completely new.

That isn’t saying much. Every software is a permutation of zeros and ones. The novelty or ingenuity, or just quality and fitness for purpose, can lie in the permutation you come up with. And an LLM is limited by its training in the permutations it is likely to come up with, unless you give it heaps of specific guidance on what to do.

In my experience, the further you move away from the user and toward the hardware and fundamental theoretical algorithms, the less true this becomes.

This is very true for an email client, but very untrue for an innovative 3D rendering engine technology (just an example).

An email client is highly nontrivial, due to the complexities of the underlying standards, and how the real implementations you have to be compatible with don’t strictly follow them. Making an email client that doesn’t suck and is fully interoperable is quite an ambitious endeavor.

The point was to answer the question: "Can every piece of software be viewed as a permutation of software that has already been developed?" In my opinion, an email client is a more favorable example than a 3D engine. In fields where it is necessary to differentiate, improve, or innovate at the algorithmic level, where research and development play a fundamental role, it is not simply a matter of permuting software or leveraging existing software components by simply assembling them more effectively.

Actually, in the specific case of a 3D program it's the current generation of LLM's complete lack of ability in spatial reasoning that prevents them from "understanding" what you want when you ask it to e.g. "make a camera that flies in the direction you are looking at".

It necessarily has to derive it from examples of cameras that fly forward that it knows about, without understanding the exact mathematical underpinnings that allow you to rotate a 3D perspective camera and move along its local coordinate system, let alone knowing how to verify whether its implementation functions as desired, often resulting in dysfunctional garbage. Even with a human in the loop that provides it with feedback and grounds it (I tried), it can't figure this out, and that's just a tiny example.

Math is precise, and an LLM's fuzzy approach is therefore a bad fit for it. It will need an obscene amount of examples to reliably "parrot" mathematical constructs.

> "make a camera that flies in the direction you are looking at"

That's not the task of a renderer though, but its client, so you're talking past your parent comment. And given that I've seen peers one-shot tiny Unity prototypes with agents, I don't really believe they're that bad at taking an educated guess at such a simple prompt, as much as I wish it were true.

You're right. My point was more that LLMs are bad at (3D) math and spatial reasoning, which applies to renderers. Since Unity neatly abstracts the complexity away of this through an API that corresponds well to spoken language, and is quite popular, that same example and similar prototypes should have a higher success rate.

I guess the less detailed a spec has to be thanks to the tooling, the more likely it is that the LLM will come up with something usable. But it's unclear to me whether that is because of more examples existing due to higher user adoption, or because of fewer decisions/predictions having to be made by the LLM. Maybe it is a bit of both.

What complexities specifically? Implementing SMTP (from the client’s perspective) that other SMTP servers can understand is not very hard. I have done it. Does it follow every nuance of the standard? I don’t know, but it works for me. I haven’t implemented IMAP but I don’t see why it should be much harder. Is there a particular example you have in mind?

I would be surprised if there are more working email clients out there than working 3D engines. The gaming market is huge, most people do not pay to use email, hobbyists love creating game engines.

Idk, a working basic email client is just not that hard to write though. SMTP and IMAP are simple protocols and the required graphical interface is a very straightforward combination of standard widgets.

I don't mean to be contrarian, but this is completely false.

IMAP _seems_ to be a straightforward (but nasty and stateful) protocol, until you find out that every major provider ignores RFCs and does things slightly differently.

It's a hellscape.

There's this weird schizophrenia around this in the software world.

In the past I have had people here suggest they're just writing boilerplate CRUD software, and I've suggested that means they could just use low code tools instead. They then suggest it's too complex for that to work.

I think we tend to view ourselves as just hooking together basic operations, which might be technically true, but that becomes complex very quickly. A product can be built off of straight forward REST and database operations, but take you months of learning to get up to speed on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com