Live data from Hacker News

The copilot delusion

deplet.ing

81–90 of 214 posts

Re: The copilot delusion

#81
post #68

> The machine is real. The silicon is real. The DRAM, the L1, the false sharing, the branch predictor flipping a coin—it’s all real. And if you care, you can work with it. This is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I’ve come across in a while.

Same, The author writes like Dave Barry. I burst out laughing more than once. He was able to articulate with a lot of humor exactly what I think of co-pilot.

Re: The copilot delusion

#82

Is the writing here intentionally bad? May be it's not my cup of tea but it's been a while since I've read something so cringey, it's difficult to finish.

The main source of the cringe is that the writing is so in your face about how hard it’s trying while the author is clearly unaware.

Re: The copilot delusion

#83
I think all arguments pro and against AI assistants for coding should include a preface that describes the programing language, the domain of the app, the model being used and the chosen interface for interacting with the assistant.

Otherwise everyone's just talking past each other.

Re: The copilot delusion

#84
post #76

Not sure if he talked about photography, Desktop Publishing, spreadsheets, or some other labor-saving invention. But what I heard over the din of whining was "It was hard for me, it should be hard for you". And... that's not how this or anything works. You get labor-saving stuff, you choose if you want to continue to solve hard problems, or if you want the same problems (which suddenly turned easy). Yes, it's not per…

No, you missed the point entirely. The author was correctly pointing out that if you don’t struggle, you will not understand how things work. Claim otherwise all you want; centuries of pedagogy have proven this time and time again. You have to understand the fundamentals to grok the abstractions, and you have to fail to know why the successes worked.

Re: The copilot delusion

#85

> if you want to sculpt the kind of software that gets embedded in pacemakers and missile guidance systems and M1 tanks—you better throw that bot out the airlock and learn. But the bulk of us aren't doing that... We're making CRUD apps for endless incoming streams of near identical user needs, just with slightly different integrations, schemas, and lipstick. Let's be honest. For most software there is nothing new und…

Yeah, and the article talks about those ways in which AI is useful. Overall, the author doesn’t have a problem with experts using AI to help them. The main argument is that we’re calling AI a copilot, and many newbies may be trusting it or leaning on it too much, when in reality, it’s still a shitty coworker half the time. Real copilots are actually your peers and experts at what they do.

> Now? We’re building a world where that curiosity gets lobotomized at the door. Some poor bastard—born to be great—is going to get told to "review this AI-generated patchset" for eight hours a day, until all that wonder calcifies into apathy. The terminal will become a spreadsheet. The debugger a coffin.

On the other hand, one could argue that AI is just another abstraction. After all, some folks may complain that over-reliance on garbage collectors means that newbies never learn how to properly manage memory. While memory management is useful knowledge for most programmers, it rarely practically comes up for many modern professional tasks. That said, at least knowing about it means you have a deeper level of understanding and mastery of programming. Over time, all those small, rare details add up, and you may become an expert.

I think AI is in a different class because it’s an extremely leaky abstraction.

We use many abstractions every day. A web developer really doesn’t need to know how deeper levels of the stack work — the abstractions are very strong. Sure, you’ll want to know about networking and how browsers work to operate at a very high level, but you can absolutely write very nice, scalable websites and products with more limited knowledge. The key thing is that you know what you’re building on, and you know where to go learn about things if you need to. (Kind of like how a web developer should know the fundamental basics of HTML/CSS/JS before really using a web framework. And that doesn’t take much effort.)

AI is different — you can potentially get away with not knowing the fundamental basics of programming… to a point. You can get away with not knowing where to look for answers and how to learn. After all, AIs would be fucking great at completing basic programming assignments at the college level.

But at some point, the abstraction gets very leaky. Your code will break in unexpected ways. And the core worry for many is that fewer and fewer new developers will be learning the debugging, thinking, and self-learning skills which are honestly CRITICAL to becoming an expert in this field.

You get skills like that by doing things yourself and banging your head against the wall and trying again until it works, and by being exposed to a wide variety of projects and challenges. Honestly, that’s just how learning works — repetition and practice!

But if we’re abstracting away the very act of learning, it is fair to wonder how much that will hurt the long-term skills of many developers.

Of course, I’m not saying AI causes everyone to become clueless. There are still smart, driven people who will pick up core skills along the way. But it seems pretty plausible that the % of people who do that will decrease. You don’t get those skills unless you’re challenged, and with AI, those beginner level “learn how to program” challenges become trivial. Which means people will have to challenge themselves.

And ultimately, the abstraction is just leaky. AI might look like it solves your problems for you to a novice, but once you see through the mirage, you realize that you cannot abstract away your core programming & debugging skills. You actually have to rely on those skills to fix the issues AI creates for you — so you better be learning them along the way!!

Btw, I say this as someone who does use AI coding assistants. I don’t think it’s all bad or all good. But we can’t just wave away the downsides just because it’s useful

Re: The copilot delusion

#86
post #76

Not sure if he talked about photography, Desktop Publishing, spreadsheets, or some other labor-saving invention. But what I heard over the din of whining was "It was hard for me, it should be hard for you". And... that's not how this or anything works. You get labor-saving stuff, you choose if you want to continue to solve hard problems, or if you want the same problems (which suddenly turned easy). Yes, it's not per…

No, you missed the point entirely. The author was correctly pointing out that if you don’t struggle, you will not understand how things work. Claim otherwise all you want; centuries of pedagogy have proven this time and time again. You have to understand the fundamentals to grok the abstractions, and you have to fail to know why the successes worked.

[deleted]

Re: The copilot delusion

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in an enterprise company where we just recently got access to use cursor, before that copilot. We have literally stood up entire services built practically entirely with AI that are deployed right now and consumers are using. AI does work with competent people behind the wheel. People can't keep hiding behind saying that it always churns out code that doesn't work. We are way past those days. If you don't you…

Yep, agreed. I can no longer relate to people who don't recognize how powerful a tool like Cursor can be. But I also can't relate to people who think they can, today, build fully working software using just AIs, without people who know how software works and are able to understand and debug what is being generated. Maybe it's true that this will no longer be the case a year from now. I honestly don't know. But at the…

Cursor has been confidently incorrect repeatedly when discussing databases at my job. It doesn’t understand how MySQL works, and wants to make terrible indexing decisions because of it. You wouldn’t know that it’s wrong unless you already know the correct answer, because what it recommended will work, it’ll just be bloated and sub-optimal. And therein lies the problem: computers are so fast, people will happily assume that it worked, and then later will scale the size up when the half-baked solution shows its cracks.

Re: The copilot delusion

#88
I loved this article. But for some reason my gut is telling it will age like milk. Can you imagine how effective these coding agents will be in, say, 2036? The concept of coding things by hand for the sake of higher quality will seem so outdated

Re: The copilot delusion

#90
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI does work with competent people behind the wheel So does extremely junior devs that are really bad but you code review EVERYTHING. (Except jr programmers can learn, AI models can't really, they can be retrained from scratch by big corporations)

The AI will do it faster and cheaper than the junior does and thats what the company cares about. Not to mention you should still be code reviewing it anyway. In fact with AI you should be reviewing even more than you were before.

> The AI will do it faster and cheaper than the junior does and thats what the company cares about.

Short term. Not long term. The AI will never become a staff developer. Shifting review on to the senior developers is shifting responsibility and workload, which will have the expected outcome. Slower development cycles as you have to consider every footgun. Especially when the AI can't explain the reasoning for esoteric changes. I ask a Jr, it's likely they have a test (codified or manual) that led them to the decision.

Post reply on HN