Hacker News Reader

How come AI is not a new layer of abstraction?

AI translates prompts in natural language into code in a programming language, just as a compiler translates a programming language into assembly.

View on HN

High-level programming languages use well-defined, limited syntax to encode program behavior in a deterministic way. Compilers translate these directions into programs that should have identical behavior between compiler runs and between different compilers. (If they don't, that's a compiler bug, or else an artifact of UB.) This means you can structurally and provably rely on the high-level programming layer without worrying about what's underneath: the assembly is abstracted away. You also get the massive benefit of being able to tweak and improve the assembly layer independently of the programming language layer, so long as the contract between language and compiler is not violated.

If AI is a "layer of abstraction," so is working with a bunch of contractors to make your app. The definition is broadened to the point of absurdity. (Solely: "I don't have to think about code anymore," which only touches on the most superficial aspect of an abstraction.)

Why can't an abstraction be unreliable and nondeterministic, maybe it's just a bad and leaky one. LLMs are algorithms, i.e. Turing machines after all. They can often produce a program without you even looking at the code, hence they abstract coding away.

Honestly even calling a contractor a layer of abstraction doesn't sound too absurd to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com