9 ms·

I can only imagine that people who say things like: > If you use AI for anything else, and in particularly if you use it to generate code, you're wasting your

by m_w_ 2mo ago

I can only imagine that people who say things like: > If you use AI for anything else, and in particularly if you use it to generate code, you're wasting your time. Have not used frontier models in at least a year. It is nearly inconceivable to me that I would ever go back to writing code by hand, in any context. Even if no new model was ever released, the combination of GLM 5.2 and DeepSeek V4 flash is more than sufficient to do real work. It's not hard to imagine that a distillation of Mythos/5.6S or whatever is a couple generations away will push me even further in this direction.

adamddev1 2mo ago
Are you writing code for end-user applications, or for tools or libraries that other stuff is built with?
- grim_io 2mo ago
  Not the guy you asked, but honestly, I'm not sure which one of those I'd consider better use cases, not worse.
  - adamddev1 2mo ago
    I ask because I think there's a huge difference between the two. People making end-user applications might think they can tolerate more errors and bloat from AI. Just because they can get away with doing that with AI (and that's debatable) does not mean that people can also get away with that in developing tools, libraries, languages etc. The errors, bloat and instability bubbles up exponentially as people build on it. There seems to be this fallacy of "I don't have to write code anymore, therefore nobody will have to write code anymore."
    - orangecat 2mo ago
      There seems to be this fallacy of "I don't have to write code anymore, therefore nobody will have to write code anymore." I see a lot more of "AI coding doesn't work well in this specific case, therefore it's entirely useless".
- adamtaylor_13 2mo ago
  Both. And internal tools. And infrastructure scaffolding a la terraform. And visual design. And frontier models routinely crush all the above in a way I couldn't, at speeds unattainable to mere flesh and blood like me.
  - adamddev1 2mo ago
    I still think internal tools are kind of in a category closer to end-user applications. They are limited in how widely they are used, and therefore they don't have to be as solid as say libraries used by millions.
- m_w_ 2mo ago
  Generally end-user applications, depending on how you classify internal tools. I'm generally very happy with the output of Opus 4.X with a moderately structured CLAUDE.md and some investment in detection/avoidance of anti-patterns (Next.js+ts). I imagine that the bitter lesson is true here, and these heuristic guidelines will become increasingly unnecessary w/ smarter models. Library-type work has mostly been side/toy projects, although fwiw, with a standard/spec on hand (CommonMark for example), I'm also happy w/ the output. It's often possible to "close the loop" and have the coding agent autonomously iterate until the standard is adhered to.
  - adamddev1 2mo ago
    Thanks for the answer. From what I can see, most people who are enthusiastic and optimistic about AI use are producing end-user apps, internal tools (limited use) or just hobby libraries. The fuzziness may be tolerable on the edges of immediate use. Creating something that is solid enough for widespread, reliable building is just in another category. And I wish people recognized this distinction more when they say we don't need to look at code anymore.
- devin 2mo ago
  Judging by parent's CV, it kind of looks like they are relatively new to the industry and working in areas where they are heavy on the greenfield side of the equation. I get the sense that they've probably had some good success on smallish projects where they are in charge of keeping it all in their head. That's not to say that isn't earned or otherwise valuable experience, but it surely is not the way a lot of software projects are situated. Parent: I hope you won't take my comment here as a slight. I mean no offense, just pointing out what I think is probably valuable context.
  - m_w_ 2mo ago
    Yes - this is certainly true. I would have to concede that I could not speak to how my thesis would map onto a truly colossal codebase. That said - I would (again, maybe naively) suppose it's not hugely different - much of the work I do occurs in code where many people have and will work on it, and where the size of the codebase dwarfs model context windows. In that case, I feel the same - current frontier models, when properly oriented to a task, with some assist on the big-picture thinking - are more than capable of generating good code that can slot into big codebases with many moving pieces. Of course, I'd have to point to other people's work to defend this, but I think that's still pretty reasonable especially against the declared "LLMs are worse than useless for generating code".
champagnepapi 2mo ago
How are you verifying all the code that's generated? Do you think that verifying properly would take you as much effort as the original implementation would've?
- nextos 2mo ago
  I think this is the real problem. I am sympathetic towards automated code synthesis. But without formal verification and a human reviewing specifications to ensure alignment, I think code will end up being broken in unexpected ways or drift away from the original intent.
- Foobar8568 2mo ago
  Have you ever worked in a company? Have you ever worked in a F100? Companies are paying for software, not for owning the code.
- m_w_ 2mo ago
  I guess I'm of two minds on it. Sometimes, I will review every line, test the front-end in a staging environment, verify the backend contract, et cetera. Over time, though, I realized that many of these reviews just didn't result in any necessary changes. The current model (with guidance/claude.md/etc) was able to one-shot the task. Not to overly personify, but imagine how you might treat a junior colleague. You start by reviewing everything they do with a microscope, later you review the broad-strokes, and eventually, for low-stakes or well-scoped tasks, you just play with the demo and the ticket and approve it. Otherwise it's not materially different than a pre-AI world - you've got sample I/O, test cases, hand-review, look at the application on different screen sizes, contrive some edge cases, test against a spec if there is one - et cetera.
- doug_durham 2mo ago
  The same way that I verified all of the code that was written before AI. Just because you hand type the code doesn't mean that you don't have to test and verify. I can test much more thoroughly with AI that without.
datakan 2mo ago
Do you not enjoy coding? I'm not trying to be snarky, just a genuine question. People used to enjoy it but lately all I see are people talking about they "no longer have to do it" I see both sides of the argument people endless have over this. I have been hesitant to take a solid position, first because I suck at coding and second because I dont really have a dog in this fight. The only context I have is my friend in HVAC from many years ago that went to a school that taught everything manually because they wanted people to have a deep understanding of it. What happens to code in the future when people don't have a deep understanding?
- deterministic 2mo ago
  I code the parts that are new and interesting. However after 30+ years of programming most code is something I have done before so I love getting Claude Code to do it :)
- nijuashi 2mo ago
  Yes, but it’s like walking. I enjoy walking, but I’d rather drive to get to another town.
  - em-bee 2mo ago
    to stress that analogy even further, i don't want to drive, i don't even have a drivers license. i rather arrange my life in such a way that i don't ever need to get to another town if driving is the only way to get there. translation: i'd rather not build an app at all if an LLM is the only way for me to achieve it.
- wmichelin 2mo ago
  I enjoy building things. I do not enjoy the act typing out code by hand. > Do you not enjoy coding? I'm not trying to be snarky, just a genuine question To follow this debate through, to maximize coding enjoyment, shouldn't we be avoiding compilers? They take away a lot of the code we need to write. Frameworks as well?
  - 2mo ago
Ken_At_EM 2mo ago
nailed it
couchdb_ouchdb 2mo ago
1000% this person has no idea what they are talking about.
IshKebab 2mo ago
He's obviously wrong for saying "If you use AI to generate code you're wasting your time" - that's empirically wrong. As you say, anyone who has used recent models knows you can absolutely save time with them (hell even the earlier ones were useful for one-off scripts). But... > It is nearly inconceivable to me that I would ever go back to writing code by hand, in any context. In any context? Sorry but they aren't that good yet. There are definitely areas where they are going to struggle. Maybe fewer than before. Maybe you can say "in any context where a junior-to-mid programmer would be ok", which I would agree with.

by m_w_ 2mo ago

adamddev1 2mo ago

Are you writing code for end-user applications, or for tools or libraries that other stuff is built with?

grim_io 2mo ago
Not the guy you asked, but honestly, I'm not sure which one of those I'd consider better use cases, not worse.
- adamddev1 2mo ago
  I ask because I think there's a huge difference between the two. People making end-user applications might think they can tolerate more errors and bloat from AI. Just because they can get away with doing that with AI (and that's debatable) does not mean that people can also get away with that in developing tools, libraries, languages etc. The errors, bloat and instability bubbles up exponentially as people build on it. There seems to be this fallacy of "I don't have to write code anymore, therefore nobody will have to write code anymore."
  - orangecat 2mo ago
    There seems to be this fallacy of "I don't have to write code anymore, therefore nobody will have to write code anymore." I see a lot more of "AI coding doesn't work well in this specific case, therefore it's entirely useless".
adamtaylor_13 2mo ago
Both. And internal tools. And infrastructure scaffolding a la terraform. And visual design. And frontier models routinely crush all the above in a way I couldn't, at speeds unattainable to mere flesh and blood like me.
- adamddev1 2mo ago
  I still think internal tools are kind of in a category closer to end-user applications. They are limited in how widely they are used, and therefore they don't have to be as solid as say libraries used by millions.
m_w_ 2mo ago
Generally end-user applications, depending on how you classify internal tools. I'm generally very happy with the output of Opus 4.X with a moderately structured CLAUDE.md and some investment in detection/avoidance of anti-patterns (Next.js+ts). I imagine that the bitter lesson is true here, and these heuristic guidelines will become increasingly unnecessary w/ smarter models. Library-type work has mostly been side/toy projects, although fwiw, with a standard/spec on hand (CommonMark for example), I'm also happy w/ the output. It's often possible to "close the loop" and have the coding agent autonomously iterate until the standard is adhered to.
- adamddev1 2mo ago
  Thanks for the answer. From what I can see, most people who are enthusiastic and optimistic about AI use are producing end-user apps, internal tools (limited use) or just hobby libraries. The fuzziness may be tolerable on the edges of immediate use. Creating something that is solid enough for widespread, reliable building is just in another category. And I wish people recognized this distinction more when they say we don't need to look at code anymore.
devin 2mo ago
Judging by parent's CV, it kind of looks like they are relatively new to the industry and working in areas where they are heavy on the greenfield side of the equation. I get the sense that they've probably had some good success on smallish projects where they are in charge of keeping it all in their head. That's not to say that isn't earned or otherwise valuable experience, but it surely is not the way a lot of software projects are situated. Parent: I hope you won't take my comment here as a slight. I mean no offense, just pointing out what I think is probably valuable context.
- m_w_ 2mo ago
  Yes - this is certainly true. I would have to concede that I could not speak to how my thesis would map onto a truly colossal codebase. That said - I would (again, maybe naively) suppose it's not hugely different - much of the work I do occurs in code where many people have and will work on it, and where the size of the codebase dwarfs model context windows. In that case, I feel the same - current frontier models, when properly oriented to a task, with some assist on the big-picture thinking - are more than capable of generating good code that can slot into big codebases with many moving pieces. Of course, I'd have to point to other people's work to defend this, but I think that's still pretty reasonable especially against the declared "LLMs are worse than useless for generating code".

champagnepapi 2mo ago

How are you verifying all the code that's generated? Do you think that verifying properly would take you as much effort as the original implementation would've?

nextos 2mo ago
I think this is the real problem. I am sympathetic towards automated code synthesis. But without formal verification and a human reviewing specifications to ensure alignment, I think code will end up being broken in unexpected ways or drift away from the original intent.
Foobar8568 2mo ago
Have you ever worked in a company? Have you ever worked in a F100? Companies are paying for software, not for owning the code.
m_w_ 2mo ago
I guess I'm of two minds on it. Sometimes, I will review every line, test the front-end in a staging environment, verify the backend contract, et cetera. Over time, though, I realized that many of these reviews just didn't result in any necessary changes. The current model (with guidance/claude.md/etc) was able to one-shot the task. Not to overly personify, but imagine how you might treat a junior colleague. You start by reviewing everything they do with a microscope, later you review the broad-strokes, and eventually, for low-stakes or well-scoped tasks, you just play with the demo and the ticket and approve it. Otherwise it's not materially different than a pre-AI world - you've got sample I/O, test cases, hand-review, look at the application on different screen sizes, contrive some edge cases, test against a spec if there is one - et cetera.
doug_durham 2mo ago
The same way that I verified all of the code that was written before AI. Just because you hand type the code doesn't mean that you don't have to test and verify. I can test much more thoroughly with AI that without.

datakan 2mo ago

Do you not enjoy coding? I'm not trying to be snarky, just a genuine question. People used to enjoy it but lately all I see are people talking about they "no longer have to do it" I see both sides of the argument people endless have over this. I have been hesitant to take a solid position, first because I suck at coding and second because I dont really have a dog in this fight. The only context I have is my friend in HVAC from many years ago that went to a school that taught everything manually because they wanted people to have a deep understanding of it. What happens to code in the future when people don't have a deep understanding?

deterministic 2mo ago
I code the parts that are new and interesting. However after 30+ years of programming most code is something I have done before so I love getting Claude Code to do it :)
nijuashi 2mo ago
Yes, but it’s like walking. I enjoy walking, but I’d rather drive to get to another town.
- em-bee 2mo ago
  to stress that analogy even further, i don't want to drive, i don't even have a drivers license. i rather arrange my life in such a way that i don't ever need to get to another town if driving is the only way to get there. translation: i'd rather not build an app at all if an LLM is the only way for me to achieve it.
wmichelin 2mo ago
I enjoy building things. I do not enjoy the act typing out code by hand. > Do you not enjoy coding? I'm not trying to be snarky, just a genuine question To follow this debate through, to maximize coding enjoyment, shouldn't we be avoiding compilers? They take away a lot of the code we need to write. Frameworks as well?
- 2mo ago

Ken_At_EM 2mo ago

nailed it

couchdb_ouchdb 2mo ago

1000% this person has no idea what they are talking about.

IshKebab 2mo ago

He's obviously wrong for saying "If you use AI to generate code you're wasting your time" - that's empirically wrong. As you say, anyone who has used recent models knows you can absolutely save time with them (hell even the earlier ones were useful for one-off scripts). But... > It is nearly inconceivable to me that I would ever go back to writing code by hand, in any context. In any context? Sorry but they aren't that good yet. There are definitely areas where they are going to struggle. Maybe fewer than before. Maybe you can say "in any context where a junior-to-mid programmer would be ok", which I would agree with.