ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
70% Positive
Analyzed from 3781 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#taste#software#something#hard#more#don#written#write#post#design
Discussion (88 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
In either case, taste being all that's left doesn't really help at all since whatever FAANG or top startups do is by definition good taste. Same for fashion, art and so on with the top being suitably defined. Slim fit was all the rage until all the uncool people got in and that's what ended the trend and not any friction or utility.
Frankly, this barely scratches the surface of the hubris of engineers. I personally think AI has been one of the best things to happen to software engineering. Writing boilerplate or my millionth auth implementation was never why I fell in love with the craft in the first place.
I once wrote a pile of C++ templates that would let you wrap a C++ function as a JavaScript function, automatically converting all the arguments and the return type. Then I left the company. How did my successors find it? No idea. Maybe they pulled out all the automation complexity and replaced it with manually operated boilerplate.
So i guess proven secure architecture will come and stay.
Following form of the words I just read: these 100% animous filled HN threads about how everyone is bad and everything deserves mocker have to be some elaborate power game to undermine hope and human will, I genuinely do not understand how genuine human people could think it good to "comment" like this.
There's just such a ridiculous pile on of people with such enormous overwhelming negativity underneath this ocmment. This off-gassing is almost never engaged with the material. Now there's an excuse to write off any material we don't like instantly, to accuse it of fakeness. But I still do not see a realness enscribed upon people who so actively work to tear down & prevent thought & consideration.
To engage with the post: I do think the definition of fashion is interesting, and a real power dynamic to be aware of. But do think there's a lot of things that take off in the world because they are good and interesting and nice, especially in technology and products, that the world wants nice things, and will happily support you for doing that. And especially in tech, the technical decisions we start from and build underfoot steer us towards success in subtle compounding ways, that matter, and that taste is crucial, where fashion is not a factor.
Again, at a meta level: my distress & frustration at the top is less from seeing this comment, and far more from seeing everything down thread trying to out-do one another with how cynical and anti-meaning anti-trying they can be. But I think this post definitely started on an all too familiar note, blood in the HN waters that all too often gets us so sharky.
I'm a firm believer in not engaging with or promoting the content of misrepresented AI.
“For taste governs every free — as opposed to rote — human response. Nothing is more decisive. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion — and there is taste in acts, taste in morality. Intelligence, as well, is really a kind of taste: taste in ideas. (One of the facts to be reckoned with is that taste tends to develop very unevenly. It's rare that the same person has good visual taste and good taste in people and taste in ideas.)
Taste has no system and no proofs. But there is something like a logic of taste: the consistent sensibility which underlies and gives rise to a certain taste. A sensibility is almost, but not quite, ineffable. Any sensibility which can be crammed into the mold of a system, or handled with the rough tools of proof, is no longer a sensibility at all. It has hardened into an idea..."
https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1rhug58/mcd...
so it is profitable to sell vibecoding tools, but its unlikely to be consumed by "serious organizations"
so it is profitable to sell vibecoding tools, but its unlikely to be consumed by "serious organizations"
Yes, previously the person who didn't understand shipped faster. It was a long standing problem. The people who crapped, got the bonus, and ran were much faster than the patient engineer of quality.
By the way, what were the essays that formulated Claude Style? if the author was indeed formed by them, I'd like to read them - or at least enough of them to understand.
All this doesn't necessarily translate to sales though. Because, to evaluate those things requires attention, trust, time and effort.
But the advent of design systems and software like Sketch and Figma pretty much automated the job away. You didn’t need the raw Photoshop skills anymore - any CMU grad could be a top tier designer now.
I see the same thing basically happening here. Taste will matter for a while but eventually people are just choosing the most accepted/expected optimal choices and anything that falls outside the trend will be “not good” in the same way skeuomorphism in design is no longer good.
So we’re lucky we’re in a taste era - it’s a lot of fun. You (yes you!) can still change it, shape it, establish the status quo of tomorrow
You can’t do product design without visual design - and many designers don’t. They’re picking from UI libraries like Tailwind or MUI, which is really something any developer could do, and many do. That’s why the job mostly died.
Even the most abstract of painters, fine artists, and so-on should have good fundamentals. They’ve gone through the discipline and developed taste, they don’t choose it from a library.
The CMU grad (using this as a stand-in now for any so-called educated hack, sorry CMU) is skipping all that and asserting personal authority without proving or living anything. And that shows IMO.
Companies don’t prioritize design anymore, but that’s a different topic.
Given the recent "moving to a farm" ... 7 days later ... "leaving the farm" posts, it's hard not to read this as someone clearly struggling with the burnout which is all too common in our industry, and resultingly giving in to the false promise of a machine that can just handle the thinking for you.
Reading text, it can either grab me or it doesn't. I've asked about that to an AI and there's some reason for that. Some text is more compatible with me, due to the rhythm or combination of chars/words used, how they actually look/feel, it's not just about the content. So I'm assuming some writers are going to be more compatible with me while others will make me dismiss them quickly or just skim.
I like to think I have the correct objective taste in music, but everybody thinks that about themselves.
Reductionism is hard to apply to intuitions, and we often fool ourselves.
I personally call this the obviously test: smart people correctly notice something and say it is obvious. It is a rather rarer skill to understand and explain why. I have particularly noticed it with coaching (which adds the next levels of difficulty in getting someone to grok what you've seen).
How convenient it is that we’re all so awesome according to the one metric that can’t be measured
LLM can't waste weeks debating stacks and tools and then recast the problem as a new framework that needs to exist.
*Check mate*
Every AI-frustrated (but LLM-written, sigh) blog post about the loss of taste and craft and hard work in development sounds like we've given up the interaction with the machine. Like human work is sitting back in your chair and shitting on stuff.
That's obviously not true! That's not how any of this works!
It's hard and weird to develop with the LLMs because they just do stuff. Lots of it is good, some of it is OK, some of it's horrible. Unpacking what it's done is hard and weird because software isn't just lovely UX, it's also data structures that scale and performance and privacy and enterprise controls and SOC 2 and onboarding and accessibility.
If you want to build real software, all that stuff has to get done. Today you're working on the feature, tomorrow you're making it scale. It's long-term and iterative and complex and hard to pack into a prompt or a markdown spec.
The work is the work, done at and with the computer, and it's way more than just "taste."
Doesn't that mean guaranteed failure in the market if you use taste as your guiding star? Therefore, there's really no way to enter the market anymore.
I don't know how you then ship software or monetise it...? The market will just clone it.
So... Don't share stuff publicly? Only share with closed groups? Where does this leave small-time software development...?
Maybe software moves to this after it's commoditized? Users might prefer an artisanal one vs ordering it off the shelf or using an agent themselves.
There will be no mass job layoffs for antying but relatively automatable stuff.
This article is unfortunately full of vague slop like this. It seems the author doesn’t trust their own taste.
I also completely disagree with the premise though - so many seem desperate to discuss the implications of a singularity which shows no sign of arriving.
LLMs have ingested the entire internet and are able to generate plausible and mostly accurate text on demand.
What is missing from thee output of LLMs: intelligence, agency, motivation, morality, discrimination and yes, taste.
Then we'll need to accept that coding is better when it's done by computers, and we'll start telling everyone it's actually the prompts and context that steered the machine that really matter.
We still have a metric for good taste, and it is $. Solve a problem that people care about? They give you $. Solve problem no one care about? No $.
It is not perfect, but I challenge you to find a better metric that is as effective and simple.
And honestly: I've been tired of an age of engineers that are beat down, that only want simple, that finding the most blunt approach is the only way. It has felt tasteless. Anti-ambitious. It often is still very sensible and practical and what you should shoot for! But there are also people wandering around now trying much harder! And I am excited for those frontiers! I think it will challenge and shake the foundations that we've accepted as true, as There Is No Alternative, in exciting bold and fun ways.
I am however pretty unconvinced by the article. There's a lot that doesn't quite work for me, that isn't building the case I'd like, whose takes are off from my read.
> The output is good enough—that is the problem. Good enough is a solvent. It dissolves the reason to do better. For as long as making things was expensive, the expense did quiet work on our behalf. It rationed output.
Agreed about the rationing of output. I do think that the article though continues to show a magical thinking. That we have these things now and they autonomously do the thing. That the LLM's have solved it all.
The article itself goes on at length about how nebulous and abstract taste is:
> Taste is that. It is the compressed, wordless verdict you reach faster than you can justify. It is the “no, again” you say to yourself with total conviction and no available argument
But this contrasts so distinctly to me against "the output is good enough". Is it? That depends. That depends on your taste. The proximate first results come quick. But the technics underneath? Those themselves, in my view, rely enormously on engineering taste to support and advance. I think we see a very similar sort of magical delivery thinking, very clearly on display here:
> When the factories came, they could suddenly make everything—cheaply, uniformly, by the thousand.
As if there was some magical "good enough" transition where suddenly the aliens came and gave us this box that just does the thing. As if we discovered the right formulas and math and now: we had production. Again I think there's just an enormous amount of work and taste that is still actively required inside the factory box, that building the industrial processes is incredibly intense & difficult, even though we have reliable industry-line production and now robots doing the labor.
There's still so many gems, so much lovely material for thought. I love the provocations here, and I think there's a lot of great calibration.
> The friction was not an obstacle to developing taste. The friction was the curriculum.
Makes me think of yesterdays @apenwarr banger,
> Every slow prototype started out as a fast prototype, I think that’s how it goes https://bsky.app/profile/apenwarr.ca/post/3msemlo4rds2h
I would like to comment on this, though:
> that only want simple, that finding the most blunt approach is the only way. It has felt tasteless. Anti-ambitious.
I am always aiming for simple. If it's simple, it's maintainable and can be easy to reason about. Doing that is hard work, though. I used to spend three iterations to achieve it: functions are simple, easy to reason about, properly named and composable.
It's the opposite of blunt, though, so it might be that you meant something else with the term "simple" :)
so emacs is also left :)
> But the ratio was never the danger. It held steady for centuries. What held the flood back was that producing the crap cost something. Bad novels still took a year to write. Bad software still took a month to build.
I want to rename the title to "Blogs writing in LLMish are all that's left".
Seriously, take this one: "But the ratio was never the danger.".
Who the FUCK speaks like that?
Every day is a new day. It is better to be lucky. But I would rather be exact. Then when luck comes you are ready.
The reason is simple: Short sentences are punchy. They hit hard, carry emotional weight.
P.S. As evident, clearly I'm having some fun with this, but the point stands.
> The reason is simple. Short sentences are punchy. They hit hard. But they carry emotional weight.
Does this stem from you believing that there is value in making logical errors, or is your angle more towards believing that nobody should waste their time interacting with someone who makes logical errors?
If we assume that it is LLM generated, as suggested, apparently a lot of people, as the LLMs were trained to mimic how people speak (write).
You might find it to be unusual because you probably have never read anything written by most people. Only peculiar characters tend to get noticed.
It's a foundational model (fresh from autoregressive pretraining) that approximates the probability distribution of human texts. And, no, it's not the statistical average of how people speak. It approximates how a person who could have written a text in its context would have written the next words.
Fine-tuning, RLHF, reinforcement learning change this probability distribution. I guess, it's mostly RLHF that shapes the way LLMs write. The similarity of style is due to common providers of RLHF data.
This is likely because the individual measures being averaged like "femur length" were not independent from one-another, even where they had the benefit of being normally distributed.
In fact, I find no meaningful difference between "But no _individual_ speaks like this." and "But the ratio was never the danger.", aside from them being about different topics. They are syntactically very similar.
Do you mean starting sentences with "But"? I do, but then again I'm not a native speaker and my writing may be nonstandard. Or do you mean short and direct sentences? In which case, Hemingway.
I'm not saying the article isn't AI slop, but I think it's not obvious from the specific sample you chose, since plenty of people online write like that, before AI.
Walter Hartwell White, I suppose.
It's a blog post. It was written. The written word is different from the spoken.
People don't speak like: The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.
People don't speak like: In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
In fact, I can throw this question at you:
"TFA's title is"
Who the FUCK speaks like that? Who the FUCK uses TFA's IRL OMG WTF?
Silly, isn't it?
The person you're replying to is saying that it wasn't written. If you are the author, I will believe you that it was. If you are not the author, I have no idea why you think you know more than anyone else does.