[HN Gopher] Intents: The Endgame for Computing Interfaces?
___________________________________________________________________
Intents: The Endgame for Computing Interfaces?
Author : dpim
Score : 29 points
Date : 2024-09-11 15:42 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (http200.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (http200.substack.com)
| dpim wrote:
| Since coding with Cursor, I've spent a lot of time thinking about
| how much computing interfaces have changed in such a short period
| of time.
|
| Just as we saw a paradigm shift from imperative to declarative
| interfaces, LLMs have opened the door to new kinds of interfaces.
|
| Intent-driven interfaces are already everywhere - from AI
| assistants processing raw data, to Arazzo for defining how APIs
| map to human-scale workflows, to agents capable of handling
| complex tasks.
|
| While the doomer view is "robots will take all our jobs", my
| optimistic take is we finally have a human-centric way of
| interacting with machines and it's going to supercharge our
| abilities
| andai wrote:
| If there are two partners and one is a million times faster
| than the other, are they both necessary?
|
| Who is going to pay a thousand times more for a thousand times
| less?
| candiddevmike wrote:
| If the faster one creates naive, hard to discover bugs, is it
| really faster? I don't think we understand the long term
| consequences (or maintenance) of LLM generated code. So far
| the anecdotal results haven't been great.
| cr125rider wrote:
| LLMs seem good at replacing off-shore and very Jr. devs.
| That's about it so far. We'll see if they can get over this
| current stagnation.
| dartos wrote:
| Do they?
|
| They just seem to replace stack overflow.
| wpm wrote:
| Stack Overflow rarely surfaced a solution to your
| particular problem, but solutions to tangential or
| otherwise very similar problems. You still had to reason
| around the posters problem context and try to see if it
| really matched your own. You still had to have some
| understanding.
|
| LLMs present a solution as if it is 100% in the context
| of your problem. You arrive at a solution without being
| forced to think at all if the solution applies to your
| problem.
|
| Without being forced to, many will not. I teach
| programming and I can tell you it is so so obvious when
| students are just blasting shit from ChatGPT into their
| submissions without thought.
| mintplant wrote:
| I've become increasingly frustrated with having to work
| with other people's AI-"assisted" code. I can _tell_ when I
| depart from reading sensible human-written code and enter
| the land of Copilot where all bets are off. Just yesterday
| I discovered that some environment variables someone had
| configured on a service weren 't actually doing anything,
| because the service didn't support being configured via
| environment variables, let alone those particular ones.
| It's stuff like that which really gets me about all this:
| you can no longer assume a coherent theory of mind behind
| what you're reading. You can no longer trust that because
| something looks specific and intentional (like environment
| variable names), that it actually came from reality and not
| a confabulation. It's breaking the social contract that
| makes collaboration work.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| I don't support stupidly applied AI generated code
| either, but this isn't a new thing at all, before it was
| code pasted from Stackoverflow and hammered at until it
| sort of worked.
| mintplant wrote:
| Kitbashed SO code at least had some kind of grounding to
| it. The AI stuff is fully unmoored.
| skratlo wrote:
| Gave me a good laugh, it's like when they were envisioning flying
| cars 50 years ago.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| If I understand, this means to map a chat to a choice of clear
| API calls. I buy it.
|
| The only issue with it that I can think of it the lack of
| reporting without asking. When I login to a site, I already want
| to see the most applicable information without having to ask for
| it. If I exclusively have to start asking a chatbot for basic
| info, I may miss out on a lot of what I need to know.
| factormeta wrote:
| >The gradual shift from imperative to declarative interfaces
|
| prolog, sql, chatgpt comes to mind
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Is this basically, how to do GUI's with functional programming.
| And someone saw the light and it is now the future?
|
| People are always getting hung up on the "how to make a GUI if
| variables are immutable??".
|
| It takes a bit of getting used to, but once over the hump, it
| seems like GUI's are easier.
|
| See typescript, or fabulous, F#, elm, etc...
| shove wrote:
| Oh we're playing with fire alright
| david_shi wrote:
| https://www.paradigm.xyz/2023/06/intents
|
| Check this out
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-14 23:01 UTC)