Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example:
> When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates.
> It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
What we lost the last time code got cheap
21–30 of 126 posts
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#22Curious what other teams are doing to keep encouraging people to think critically about their code? I’ve been finding it harder to keep people motivated, keep them engaged with all the changes coming in. And I can’t blame them, it’s been overwhelming. Is everyone else just using more AI..?
Personally, guiding junior teammates down the path away from purely "Writer of Code" to "Implementer of Functionality" has been working well for me.
If you get them involved in the design process, they feel heard. Feeling heard is one surefire way to have a person feel involved. Feeling involved fosters a sense of ownership and pride which in turn helps keep a person engaged.
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#23I worried this blog post was going to pivot into a marketing pitch for some product, but no, it just describes the issue where the AI tool that generates your code probably won't document its reasons for the choices it makes. That documentation problem exists in the pre-AI era too, except that the reasons might exist in the heads of your co-workers and could possibly be teased out. I know nothing about AI code genera…
Isn't this what good commit messages are intended to address? If a person has gone so far as to allow an agent to write all their code, they're likely having it commit on their behalf too.
Writing a skill / set of rules around what makes a good commit message would encourage the LLM to record it's reasoning (however much we truly consider it to be "reasoning").
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#24>The cost of producing code has collapsed. AI tools can generate functional, adequate, perfectly average code at a speed and cost that would have been unimaginable even five years ago. And like the outsourcing wave of the early 2000s, the economics are real and rational. Nobody is wrong for using these tools. The code they produce is often fine. It works. It passes tests. It might ship as-is. After using AI for month…
Have you tried the "use red/green TDD" trick?
I believe that increases the chances of one-shot code working, though it's also possible that it did that against Opus 4.5 and isn't necessary against Opus 4.7 but I haven't spotted the difference yet.
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#25The context of when that previous experience - Heartland outsourcing to India – happened would be helpful. The 90s? The 00s? The 10s?
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#26I think a huge gap in the market today is documentation that is both easy for humans to navigate and understand, but also readily ingestible for agents.
Self generating docs based on docstring comments are great. LLMs are capable of generating architectural overview docs from these. What more do you need?
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#27Personally I've found one of the biggest gains with coding agents is in helping me read code. Actually - that's a lie. I don't read the code. Mostly (unless my spidey-sense goes off) I ask the LLM to read the code and tell me what it does. And then I make a decision based on that. I guess I'm wondering if the article is missing half the picture. Yes - AI is wrong some of the time (and that % varies based on a host of…
It's been pretty great for ramping up into codebases too. "Give me a summary of project in current checkout in markdown form."
do you enjoy reading markdown? I don't, even with the editor in preview mode.
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#28Curious what other teams are doing to keep encouraging people to think critically about their code? I’ve been finding it harder to keep people motivated, keep them engaged with all the changes coming in. And I can’t blame them, it’s been overwhelming. Is everyone else just using more AI..?
Personally, guiding junior teammates down the path away from purely "Writer of Code" to "Implementer of Functionality" has been working well for me. If you get them involved in the design process, they feel heard. Feeling heard is one surefire way to have a person feel involved. Feeling involved fosters a sense of ownership and pride which in turn helps keep a person engaged.
Management 101.
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#29I worried this blog post was going to pivot into a marketing pitch for some product, but no, it just describes the issue where the AI tool that generates your code probably won't document its reasons for the choices it makes. That documentation problem exists in the pre-AI era too, except that the reasons might exist in the heads of your co-workers and could possibly be teased out. I know nothing about AI code genera…
Isn't one of the common criticisms of AI code that it's a bit too keen to write extensive comments - even when they probably aren't needed?
The default for Claude today is "no comments". Here's a conversation I had with Claude about it recently:
---
Me: I've notice that Claude is deleting my comments and tends not to insert many of its own. I don't want to go too crazy, but can we modify CLAUDE.md to dial up the comments a little? Like, try not to delete comments that are still relevant, and add a few explanatory comments.
Claude: [... proposal for modifying CLAUDE.md ...]
Claude: Want me to apply this, tweak the wording, or place it differently? Note that your global ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md-style instructions (visible to me as system guidance) currently say "default to writing no comments" — the project-level rule above will override that for this repo, which is what you want.
Me: Where is this rule that says "default to writing no comments"? That seems crazy?
Claude: That text is part of the system prompt I'm given by Claude Code itself — it's not in any file in your project or in your ~/.claude/ config. It's baked into the harness's default instructions to the model.
Claude: Specifically, two lines from my system prompt:
Claude: Under "Doing tasks": "Default to writing no comments. Only add one when the WHY is non-obvious..."
Claude: Under "Text output": "In code: default to writing no comments. Never write multi-paragraph docstrings or multi-line comment blocks — one short line max."
Re: What we lost the last time code got cheap
#30Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example: > When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates. > It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
Do you disagree with the point made?