Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombert | Hacker News Reader

At the risk of being a bit of a douchebag, it seems like nearly every tech opinion piece I read now boils down to "things used to be hard but they aren't anymore because LLMs can understand things faster than we can, so can ignore/change fundamentals!"

I didn't really find the argument convincing the first time and I don't really find it convincing now.

That said, with regards to macros, I actually do agree that the fear against them is broadly overblown. I have seen scary terrible horrifying macro soup in Clojure, but that has generally been outlier cases. Something like core.async abuses the hell out of macros, and despite that I think it very often increases readability and understanding of the language.

View on HN

As long as GPS stays bullet proof, Navies are in good shape.

It's going to be a hard come-to-Beevis moment if the magic signal goes away and people have to remember celestial navigation.

Not sure you can even find a sextant on most vessels.

So too these AI services.

The Navy was phasing out celestial navigation, but after some public outrage from retired naval officers they brought it back.

Does this mean using the star-tracking devices like what satellites have, or like a human paper/pen thing?

It should mean both. They need to learn how to do it by hand and then learn how to lean on a navigation system. If only GPS fails, then the celestial navigation program fallback runs without a hitch. If shit hits the fan, then they can break out the manual and remember how to do it by hand.

I mean, it is taught. In school. And, maybe, there is some residual skill out there in the fleet.

Doing a fix, like playing music well at all, takes copious practice.

GPS service is obviously going to go down whenever World War III goes hot, so the Navy is definitely training sailors on the alternatives.

> it seems like nearly every tech opinion piece I read now boils down to "things used to be hard but they aren't anymore because LLMs can understand things faster than we can, so can ignore/change fundamentals!"

Sure, LLM coding agents being capable doesn't mean we can ignore fundamentals.

But LLM coding agents surely adjust the cost/benefit considerations for all kinds of programming efforts.

Arranging your code in such a way that it's so complicated you need an LLM to understand it is surely silly.

Using an LLM to write a macro because you weren't going to learn how to write macros and deal with all the subtle cases? I think that's arguable.

And even if LLMs do our thinking for us, it's still not a reason to fork the programming language you're using, unless you expect me to believe an LLM can understand `foo |> bar` but it can't understand `bar(foo(x))`. If you're not looking at the code, it doesn't matter how pretty the code is anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com