[gavinhoward]

> The idea isn't to write better code faster, it's to build better products faster.

All else being equal, better code means better products.

Also, to have a better product without better code, you're implying that the design of the product is better and that these "AI" tools help with that.

Until they can reason, they cannot help with design.

[lanstin]

I think all else being equal, better code means you aren’t changing the system as fast and likely have stagnated in the business or growth side. Maybe that is appropriate for where your company is, but worse is better wins so often.

And I would bet that AI design would help things where the existing designers are bad, e.g. so much open source UI (that is, not cli UX) written by devs, but it is still a bit away from the top quality like Steve Jobs.

Maybe this is like the transition from hand crafted things to machined things; we go from a world some some excellent design and some meh design to a world with more uniform but less great designs.

[gavinhoward]

I don't need my business to grow. I want to support myself and my wife. That's it. You can call that whatever you like, but stagnation isn't it, unless you think that SQLite is stagnant because SQLite had the same business model.

"AI" design will not help until we have a true AI that can reason. (I don't think we ever will.)

Why is reasoning necessary? Because design is about understanding constraints and working within them while still producing a functional thing. A next-word-predictor will never be able to do that.

[Closi]

GPT4 can clearly already reason IMO (I mean it can play chess fairly well without ever being taught, or if you create a puzzle from scratch and tell it to it it can try to work it out and describe the logical approach it took). It’s definitely surprising that a next-word generator has developed the ability to reason, but I guess that’s where we are!

What is your definition of reasoning that you do not think GPT-4 would demonstrate signs of?

[gavinhoward]

> What is your definition of reasoning that you do not think GPT-4 would demonstrate signs of?

Heh, there have been many attempts to define reasoning. I haven't seen a good one yet.

However, I'm going to throw my hat into the ring, so be on the lookout for a blog post with that. I've got a draft and a lot of ideas. I'm spending the time to make it good.

[Closi]

Well GPT4 certainly fulfils the existing definitions of reasoning, so maybe you should call your thing something else instead of redefining ‘reasoning’ to mean something different?

Otherwise it’s just moving the goalposts.

[gavinhoward]

GPT4 is certainly not fulfilling the definition of reasoning. It's borrowing the intelligence of every human who wrote something that went into its model.

To demonstrate this, ask it to prove something that most or all people believe. Say some "intuitive" math thing. Perhaps the fact that factorial grows faster than exponential functions.

And no, don't just have it explain it, have it prove it, as in a full mathematical proof. Give it a minimal set of axioms to start with.

Merriam-Webster's definition of "reasoning" [1] says that reasoning is:

> the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason

So starting GPT4 off with some axioms would give it a starting point to base its inferences on.

Then, if it does prove it, take away one axiom. Since you started with a minimal set, it should now be impossible for GPT4 to prove that fact, and it should tell you this.

Having GPT4 prove something with as few axioms as possible and also admit that it cannot prove something with too few axioms is a great test for if it is truly reasoning.

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasoning

[lanstin]

That all makes sense.

[Closi]

Everyone has limited time, and if AI assistance can increase the speed you can develop & iterate the product to better match user needs that is how it can result in a better product.

Equally if it can help devs launch a month earlier, that’s a huge advantage in terms of working out early product/market fit.

All things being equal, I would rather have a company with better product/market fit than one with great code (even though both are important!).

[gavinhoward]

> if AI assistance can increase the speed you can develop & iterate the product to better match user needs that is how it can result in a better product.

That's a very big "if", and one I just don't think will exist.

Also, that only helps at the beginning. Add the product gets more complex, I believe the AI will help less and less until velocity will become slower than companies like mine.

And product/market fit is just a way for companies to cover up the fact that their founders wanted to found a company, not solve a real problem. If you solve a real problem first, founding a company is simple and you "just" have to sell your solution.