logoalt Hacker News

Conlectus • today at 12:27 PM • 9 replies • view on HN

There’s a specific downside to LLM-based development that people can get neck deep in a new project without interfacing with the existing work in the field.

In this case, this is basically a poorly specified implementation of half of XMPP. Of course, I half expect the LLM would have mentioned that at some point, but the repository does not.


Replies

dale_glass • today at 1:22 PM

Unfortunately XMPP is an absolutely terrible protocol. IRC's not much good either, but at least it has the excuse of being ancient and limited in what it wanted to achieve.

I don't know how it just happens that sending text messages to people can manage to result in specs that are painful to implement.

➕ show 5 replies
segmondy • today at 1:05 PM

or maybe they know about XMPP and prefer IRC. I have always wanted to build one of these on top of IRC. I grew up on IRC and sometimes just the nostalgia of familiar tech is what drives us to build towards it not how good it is.

➕ show 2 replies
dewey • today at 12:58 PM

That is currently still the differentiator between people producing code and shipping something and people who care and actually have years of experience shipping. At the current state how well you steer the LLM and which questions you ask still matters, maybe in the future "build me an app" will give amazing results, but right now you still need to know what you are doing.

In this case, it's just a waste of tokens as something not very unique was generated that doesn't have a real use case, or solves anyone's problem. As with many AI generated projects, I'm willing to bet that OP themselves will not using it any more in a month.

➕ show 2 replies
RGS1811 • today at 12:55 PM

I've done this a few times. If I had to gesture at the root cause I'd say: LLMs lack curiosity and are trained to complete assignments, not to question their validity, so both the research phase and the questioning of intent tend to get short shrift prior to building anything.

➕ show 3 replies
RunSet • today at 3:18 PM

> I half expect the LLM would have mentioned that at some point, but the repository does not.

The repository does not even mention this software is LLM-generated.

I wonder when/if the collective realization will land that LLM's failure to retain provenance during training means the code it generates exists in an indeterminate state of public domain / IP trap.

➕ show 1 reply
j45 • today at 2:09 PM

LLMs could be asked to research extra projects.

It's valid that someone just wanted to build something like this for their own purposes.

➕ show 1 reply
general_reveal • today at 3:41 PM

”There’s a specific downside to LLM-based development that people can get neck deep in a new project without interfacing with the existing work in the field.”

That’s because it’s a paradigm shift, not meant to be planned or organized by humans. The prior paradigm was that there were subject-matter experts who were human. The new paradigm is that the only author of all code is to be a machine. This new paradigm requires removing all prior authors (who happen to be human), and removing them simply requires overcrowding their output such that it’s not locatable or trustworthy.

Sit back, grab some popcorn.

PunchyHamster • today at 1:20 PM

XMPP is massively bloated protocol that is badly managed for last 2 decades

➕ show 1 reply
acedTrex • today at 3:39 PM

Ya, ive stopped interacting with all new projects, the amount of slop written by people who have no business remotely putting something out there for others to use is untenable.

The system has broken under the noise.