ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
69% Positive
Analyzed from 759 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#agents#seems#game#software#code#going#yegge#read#someone#value

Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Can someone explain the value calculation to me? This seems like someone has truly let AI VASTLY expand the codebase of what seems to be a medium sized hobby game to ~10-100x the amount of engineering required. Especially with statements about how wheelhouse, his software factory, has grown to nearly the size of the actual software he's writing. He also mentions several times that wheelhouse is specific to developing the game. Then, he discusses "pulling in beads" which itself seems on my read to be enormously engineered. (note that he also says that you burn a lot of tokens with agents "keeping your beads in sync" and I didn't have the time to figure out what that meant, but it looks like as complicated as it is, beads can't reconcile itself without burning $$$).
It seems like if you answer "yes" at every time you have the question of "can I make AI do this", you end up burning $120k/month in tokens on your side project.
Again, I am not disparaging this- but I feel like I am genuinely missing something and would welcome help understanding it.
If you believe that good engineering practice matters (in the sense that your software is maintainable, efficient, etc.), then this is horrific because the human has no idea what’s going on and any attempt to fix something by hand would probably uncover enough complications to make you consider rewriting from scratch.
But if your only qualifier is “does it do what I want it to do?” then this is perfectly fine. If you throw out the assumption that a human will ever maintain the code or need to understand it, then who cares if your main branch is full of unused code and it’s outrageously complex.
In a way, I guess this is a similar moment to abstract painting in the early 20th century.
If your assumption was that the point of a painting is to accurately capture a landscape or person, then abstract paintings are an abomination.
If you believe paintings should evoke a feeling and depicting people or landscapes are only one way to get there, you can throw out all the sketching and composing and painting technique.
Good to know that together, Yegge and Zitron bring balance to the force.
RIP to those poor humans. I can't imagine having your brain melted by Fablespeak as your FTJ.
I often write lengthy pieces. Then I look at it and say "Oh no, I don't want to become Steve Yegge!"
Waste is a failure case. How do we know the code factory is actually productive or just agents filling up the computation resource cap because they can?
>And companies are in no way, shape, or form prepared for this transition.
so, uh, what's the business model here?
Classic Steve Yegge!