The future of software development is software developers

I nodded furiously at this bit:

> The hard part of computer programming isn't expressing what we want the machine to do in code. The hard part is turning human thinking -- with all its wooliness and ambiguity and contradictions -- into computational thinking that is logically precise and unambiguous, and that can then be expressed formally in the syntax of a programming language.

> That was the hard part when programmers were punching holes in cards. It was the hard part when they were typing COBOL code. It was the hard part when they were bringing Visual Basic GUIs to life (presumably to track the killer's IP address). And it's the hard part when they're prompting language models to predict plausible-looking Python.

> The hard part has always been – and likely will continue to be for many years to come – knowing exactly what to ask for.

I don't agree with this:

> To folks who say this technology isn’t going anywhere, I would remind them of just how expensive these models are to build and what massive losses they’re incurring. Yes, you could carry on using your local instance of some small model distilled from a hyper-scale model trained today. But as the years roll by, you may find not being able to move on from the programming language and library versions it was trained on a tad constraining.

Some of the best Chinese models (which are genuinely competitive with the frontier models from OpenAI / Anthropic / Gemini) claim to have been trained for single-digit millions of dollars. I'm not at all worried that the bubble will burst and new models will stop being trained and the existing ones will lose their utility - I think what we have now is a permanent baseline for what will be available in the future.

The first part is surely true if you change it to "the hardEST part," (I'm a huge believer in "Programming as Theory Building"), but there are plenty of other hard or just downright tedious/expensive aspects of software development. I'm still not fully bought in on some of the AI stuff—I haven't had a chance to really apply an agentic flow to anything professional, I pretty much always get errors even when one-shotting, and who knows if even the productive stuff is big-picture economical—but I've already done some professional "mini projects" that just would not have gotten done without an AI. Simple example is I converted a C# UI to Java Swing in less than a day, few thousand lines of code, simple utility but important to my current project for . Assuming tasks like these can be done economically over time, I don't see any reason why small and medium difficulty programming tasks can't be achieved efficiently with these tools.

>> From where I’m standing, it’s scary.

You are being fooled by randomness [1]

Not because the models are random, but because you are mistaking a massive combinatorial search over seen patterns for genuine reasoning. Taleb point was about confusing luck for skill. Dont confuse interpolation for understanding.

You can read a Rust book after years of Java, then go build software for an industry that did not exist when you started. Ask any LLM to write a driver for hardware that shipped last month, or model a regulatory framework that just passed... It will confidently hallucinate. You will figure it out. That is the difference between pattern matching and understanding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness

Have you used an LLM specifically trained for tool calling, in Claude Code, Cursor or Aider?

They’re capable of looking up documentation, correcting their errors by compiling and running tests, and when coupled with a linter, hallucinations are a non issue.

I don’t really think it’s possible to dismiss a model that’s been trained with reinforcement learning for both reasoning and tool usage as only doing pattern matching. They’re not at all the same beasts as the old style of LLMs based purely on next token prediction of massive scrapes of web data (with some fine tuning on Q&A pairs and RLHF to pick the best answers).

There is a guaranteed cap on how far LLM based AI models can go. Models improve by being trained on better data. LLMs being used to generate millions of lines of sloppy code will substantially dilute the pool of good training data. Developers moving over to AI based development will cease to grow and learn - producing less novel code.

The massive increase in slop code and loss of innovation in code will establish an unavoidable limit on LLMs.