Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why agents are bad pair programmers

justin.searls.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 239 posts

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#31

Post by antihipocrat »

soulofmischief wrote: post #22
bluefirebrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you experience deep work the same way I do then In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions

You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that not everyone works the same way you do, or interacts the same way with agents. They are not constant interruptions if you use them correctly. Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open…

Would be informative if both sides share what the problem domain is when providing their their experiences.

It's possible that the domain or the complexity of the problems are the deciding factor for success with AI supported programming. Statements like 'you'll be left behind' or 'it's a skill issue' are as helpful as 'It fails miserably'

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

soulofmischief wrote: post #22
bluefirebrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you experience deep work the same way I do then In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions

You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that not everyone works the same way you do, or interacts the same way with agents. They are not constant interruptions if you use them correctly. Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open…

For what it’s worth, the deepest-thinking and most profound programmers I have met—hell, thinkers in general—have a peculiar tendency to favour pen and paper. Perhaps because once their work is recognised, they are generally working with a team that can amplify them without needing to interrupt their thought flow.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#33

Post by neilv »

mdp2021 wrote: post #18
latentsea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But but but... "we are an AI-first company". Yeah, nah. Fourthed!

> AI-first company Does anybody introduce itself like that? It's like when your date sends subtle signals, like kicking sleeping tramps in the street and snorting the flour over bread at the restaurant. (The shocking thing is that the expression would even make sense when taken properly - "we have organized our workflows through AI-intelligent systems" -, while at this time it easily means the opposite.)

> > AI-first company

> Does anybody introduce itself like that?

Yes, I've started getting job posts sent to me that say that.

Declaring one's company "AI-first" right now is a great time-saver: I know instantly that I can disregard that company.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#34

Post by palisade »

LLM agents don't know how to shut up and always think they're right about everything. They also lack the ability to be brief. Sometimes things can be solved with a single character or line, but no they write a full page. And, they write paragraphs of comments for even the most minuscule of changes.

They talk at you, are overbearing and arrogant.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#35

Post by hnthrowaway121 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #22
bluefirebrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you experience deep work the same way I do then In my mind you cannot do deep work while being interrupted constantly, and LLM agents are constant interruptions

You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that not everyone works the same way you do, or interacts the same way with agents. They are not constant interruptions if you use them correctly. Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open…

Analysis in the last 5-10 years has shown the Dunning-Kruger effect may not really exist. So it’s a poor basis on which to be judgmental and condescending.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#36

Post by psadri »

khendron wrote: post #29

When I first tried an LLM agent, I was hoping for an interactive, 2-way, pair collaboration. Instead, what I got was a pairing partner who wanted to do everything themselves. I couldn't even tweak the code they had written, because it would mess up their context. I want a pairing partner where I can write a little, they write a little, I write a little, they write a little. You know, an actual collaboration.

I usually add “discuss first. Don’t modify code yet”. Then we do some back and forth. And finally, “apply”.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#37

Post by dragonfax »

psadri wrote: post #36
khendron wrote: post #29

When I first tried an LLM agent, I was hoping for an interactive, 2-way, pair collaboration. Instead, what I got was a pairing partner who wanted to do everything themselves. I couldn't even tweak the code they had written, because it would mess up their context. I want a pairing partner where I can write a little, they write a little, I write a little, they write a little. You know, an actual collaboration.

I usually add “discuss first. Don’t modify code yet”. Then we do some back and forth. And finally, “apply”.

Claude Code has "plan mode" for this now. It enforces this behavior. But its still poorly documented.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#38

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

I've been considering a... protocol? for improving this. Consider this repo:

    foo.py
    bar.py
    bar.py.vibes.md
This would indicate that foo.py is human-written (or at least thoroughly reviewed by a human), while bar.py is LLM written with a lower bar of human scrutiny.

bar.py.vibes.md would contain whatever human-written guidance describes how bar should look. It could be an empty file, or a few paragraphs, or it it could contain function signatures and partially defined data types.

If an LLM wants to add a new file, it gets a vibes.md with whatever prompt motivated the addition.

Maybe some files keep their assiciated *.vibes.md forever, ready to be totally rewritten as the LLM sees fit. Maybe others stick around only until the next release, after which the associated code is reviewed and the vibes files are removed (or somehow deactivated, I could imagine it being useful for them to still be present).

What do people think, do we need handcuffs of this kind for our pair programming friends the LLMs?

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#39

Post by soulofmischief »

girvo wrote: post #30
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that not everyone works the same way you do, or interacts the same way with agents. They are not constant interruptions if you use them correctly. Essentially, this is a skill issue and you're at the first peak of the Dunning–Kruger curve, sooner ready to dismiss those with more experience in this area as being less experienced, instead of keeping an open…

It’s quite amusing to see you complain about patronisation, and then see you turn about and do it yourself one comment later.

I'm open to hearing how being honest with them about their negative approach is patronizing them.

Re: Why agents are bad pair programmers

#40

Post by cpursley »

petesergeant wrote: post #26
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #7

I use an LLM as a reference (on-demand), and don't use agents (yet). I was never into pair programming, anyway, so it isn't a familiar workflow for me. I will admit that it encourages "laziness," on my part, but I'm OK with that (remember when they said that calculators would do that? They were right). For example, I am working on a SwiftUI project (an Apple Watch app), and forgot how to do a fairly basic thing. I co…

> I use an LLM as a reference (on-demand), and don't use agents (yet) This was me until about three weeks ago. Then, during a week of holiday, I decided I didn't want to get left behind and tried a few side-projects using agents -- specifically I've been using Roo. Now I use agents when appropriate, which I'd guess is about 50% of the work I'm doing.

Roo looks interesting. How does it compare with Cursor and Windsurf?
Post reply on HN