651–660 of 897 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are least for a few more generations of model. I just finished creating a multiplayer online party game using only Claude Code. I didn't edit a single line. However, there is no way someone who doesn't know how to code could get where I am with it. You have to have an intuition on the sources of a problem. You need to be able to at least glance at the correct and understand when and where the AI is flailing, so you k…
I was thinking of that, but asking the right questions and learning the problem domain just a little bit "getting the gist of things" will help a complete newbie to generate code for a complex software. For example in your case there is the concept of message routing where a message that gets sent to the room is copied to all the participants. You have timers, animation sheets, events, triggers, etc. A question that…
It amazes me how immature our field can be. Anyone that worked for big corporations and in humongous codebases know how 'generating new code' is a small part of the job. AI blew up and suddenly I'm seeing seasoned people talking about KLOC like in the 90s.
> It amazes me how immature our field can be. Anyone that worked for big corporations and in humongous codebases know how 'generating new code' is a small part of the job. Exactly, but I would go further, anyone who worked in big corps know that other non 'generating new code' part is usually pretty inefficient and I would argue AI is going to change that too. So there will be much less of that abstract yapping in en…
> [Harper Reed] cautioned against being overly precious about the value of deeply understanding one’s code, which is no longer necessary to ensure that it works. That just strikes me as an odd thing to say. I’m convinced that this is the dividing line between today’s software engineers and tomorrow’s AI engineers (in whatever form that takes - prompt, vibe, etc.) Reed’s statement feels very much like a justification…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who's filling that role in this brave new world? Us? (Yeah, we’re fucked)
I mean the process either works, or it doesn’t. Meaning it either brings in the expected value with acceptable level of defects or it doesn’t. From a higher up’s perspective what they do is not that different from vibe coding anyway. They pick a direction, provide a high level plan and then see as things take shape, or don’t. If they are unhappy with the progress they shake things up (reorg, firings, hirings, adjusti…
Your point about management being vibe coding is spot on. I have hired people to build something and just had to hope that they built it the way I wanted. I honestly feel like AI is better than most of the outsourced code work I do.
One last piece, if anyone does have trouble getting value out of AI tools, I would encourage you to talk to/guide them like you would a junior team member. Actually "discuss" what you're trying to accomplish, lay out a plan, build your tests, and only then start working on the output. Most examples I see of people trying to get AI to do things fail because of poor communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are least for a few more generations of model. I just finished creating a multiplayer online party game using only Claude Code. I didn't edit a single line. However, there is no way someone who doesn't know how to code could get where I am with it. You have to have an intuition on the sources of a problem. You need to be able to at least glance at the correct and understand when and where the AI is flailing, so you k…
Surely there is a scale limit to how big the application can be using this approach.
> [Harper Reed] cautioned against being overly precious about the value of deeply understanding one’s code, which is no longer necessary to ensure that it works. That just strikes me as an odd thing to say. I’m convinced that this is the dividing line between today’s software engineers and tomorrow’s AI engineers (in whatever form that takes - prompt, vibe, etc.) Reed’s statement feels very much like a justification…
The whole auto factory thing sounds completely misinformed to me. Just because a machine made it does not mean the output isn't checked in a multitude of ways. Any manufacturing process is subject to quality controls. Machines are maintained. Machine parts are swapped out long before they lead to out-of-tolerance work. Process outputs are statistically characterised, measured and monitored. Measurement equipment is r…
A few things on this illusion:
* Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns
* QA workers are often pressured to let small things fly and cave easily because they simply do not get paid enough to care and know they won't win that fight unless their employer's product causes some major catastrophe that costs lives
* Most common goods and infrastructure are built by the lowest bidder with the cheapest materials using underpaid labor, so as for "quality" we're already starting at the bottom.
There is this notion that because things like ISO and QC standards exist, people follow them. The enforcement of quality is weak and the reach of any enforcing bodies is extremely short when pushed up against the wall by the teams of lawyers afforded to companies like Boeing or Stellantis.
I see it too regularly at my job to not call out this idea that quality control is anything but smoke and mirrors, deployed with minimal effort and maximum reluctance. Hell, it's arguably the reason why I have a job since about 75% of the machines I walk in their doors to fix broke because they were improperly maintained, poorly implemented or sabotaged by an inept operator. It leaves me embittered, to be honest, because it doesn't have to be this way and the only reason why it is boils down to greed and mismanagement.
This is interesting: > “It’s more fun to write code than to read code,” said Simon Willison, an A.I. fan who is a longtime programmer and blogger, channeling the objections of other programmers. “If you’re told you have to do a code review, it’s never a fun part of the job. When you’re working with these tools, it’s most of the job.” > This shift from writing to reading code can make engineers feel as if they are bys…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misconstrue the analogy. The robot isn’t equivalent to the code in this analogy. It’s the thing that generates the code. The robot operates deterministically, it has a fixed input and a fixed output. This is what makes it reliable. Your “AI coder” is nothing like that. It’s non deterministic on its best day, and it gets everything thrown at it so even more of a coin toss. This seriously undermines any expectation…
Except the code it creates is deterministic.
To put it simply, the chances that an LLM will output the same result every time given the same input is low. The LLM does not operate deterministically, unlike the manufacturing robot who will output the same door panel every single time. Or as ChatGPT put it:
> The likelihood of an LLM like ChatGPT generating the exact same code for the same prompt multiple times is generally low.