Live data from Hacker News

Task Paralysis and AI

g5t.de

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#101
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] considering we're asking people who struggle with avoiding quick dopamine to use it professionally in their daily work life. It's so wild that it never dawned on me, why some people around me were so quick with "Let AI do that!". I'm not saying that each and everyone has ADHD, but I think I underestimated a) the flow of dopamine a successful prompt can set free and b) the craving for it by folks that I deemed…

I thought about it a little deeper and I think software development has always had the addictive tendency. That hunt for the solution to the problem, has a rush when you complete it. It’s just that the rush is more frequent, addiction intensity scales with dose and frequency.

I think I might be going through withdrawal because I feel like I rarely get that fun feeling anymore with coding :(

It can be gratifying to get shit done but I love the feeling of coming up with a great reusable component and then making an entire app out of it

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#102
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The gambling trope is so tired... >>> That sounds like a process problem. LLMs, like any tool, work better if you don't use them in the naive "do this" way... The "you're holding it wrong" trope is even more tired than the gambling trope.

If you can't get results with the thing I'm getting results with, what other explanation would you give?

That logic only makes sense if you and the other person are working on the exact same kinds of projects.

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#103
In case anyone else is wondering if others feel this: yes, i can feel the risk of dopamine overshoot while using AI. As context, I've historically had ADHD that is crippling to a certain normal lifestyle. and I def feel the risk of mania or manic episodes when using these tools, in ways that I used to associate with the drug state of certain ADHD drugs.

Now I am recontextualizing the past experiences as the feeling of moving toward my goals at a speed I am not accustomed to, rather than being exclusively a drug effect

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#104
post #85
post #20

I do have an actual diagnostic and I had the same experience over the past year with early coding harness at the beginning of the year, then Claude code since its release date. But after 1+year going that direction I really don’t want to continue. The novelty is gone, dealing with AI now feels frustrating and boring, I miss engaging deeply with the actual lower level technical challenges. I do not want to manage flee…

I wonder if this is a new thing or if it is a repeat of the past. Like ... When I was young, I wrote this REALLY tight assembly code - loops that were measurably better than C or other high-level languages. Then obviously assembly was minimized, then forgotten. Then years later, I found I was happy using even interpreted languages, not even using a compiler. When first using perl and having a data structure not be as…

I feel like this is where it's going -- it's not where we are, the tools are not reliable enough that it makes sense to step back quite this far, but it feels like where we are going to arrive really soon.

If you look at agile processes one of the biggest criticisms is that there's always a magic "customer" role that needs to prioritize existing work, do acceptance testing for completed tasks, and give requirements deep enough to create real specifications. This often required a lot of attention to detail and very fine grained judgment typically lacking in those that are eager to have a job title of "customer".

And now if you look at dark software factories, these pieces are also basically everything they're missing. The person/people responsible for this role were never seen as being engineers/programmers in those processes, but I think that's where most SWEs will end up, because as these tools mature to the point they manage the code all on their own that's what's going to be left to the SWE in the chair.

The SWE of course won't be the actual customer/stakeholder, they'll be the proxy, the one that has to navigate meetings in meatspace and make soothing noises to the actual customers. Will they be happy doing this? That's a big group of "they" so some will, sure. But I think a lot of people who got into this career consider this the worst part of it, and it's now going to be the whole job.

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done a lot of introspection on this and realized that I'm very much driven by intrinsic rewards moreso than extrinsic. I got into coding over a decade before it was my career because of the exploration, learning, and puzzle/challenge aspect. Every time I have tried to be extrinsically driven (career or OSS wise) it's never worked out anyway. I could have done more to make it successful but I never cared about…

> I have done a lot of introspection on this and realized that I'm very much driven by intrinsic rewards moreso than extrinsic. > I got into coding over a decade before it was my career because of the exploration, learning, and puzzle/challenge aspect. .. > LLMs take all the intrinsic wins and leaves only the extrinsic ones. I'm not sure I understand this. For me, programming was at first a tool to use to satisfy my…

[dead]

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#106
AI basically killed my joy for programming. I've been working as swe in bigtech for 8 years. I like learning stuff, actually coding stuff with my hands, gather information and understanding before implementing, polish my code. Thats all gone

Now I am just a monkey thats: 1) add enough context, description and harness to an agent 2) review ouput and repeat 1) if context is lacking

It was bottom to top: from understanding to implementation. You were the owner. Now it is top to bottom: get implementation first, try to get understanding later. Thinking is also delegated. "Think" nowadays is "reformulate,answer questions, add context, try again". This doest feels like I am doing the work, this feels like I am a limiting factor here

Another side effect is that any code now have 0 value. No one evaluating how you guided an agent, what decisions you took. People seeing your work and think "ye, I could vibe code that too with enough time" even if this is not true

And my work isn't css and html (with all respect). It is mostly high performance clusters, parallel computing, OS, low level, SOTA online llm inference etc

Now I am seriously considering blue collar job, as I have more joy building stuff with my hands than to be a passenger/context generator to an ai. I am not a business driven person, I don't really care how much money my company earns (sorry). I just like to solve technical puzzles and think hard

P.S. yes, there are corner cases ai can't do well: non trivial, highly specific algorithms and implementations; complex patches to gigantic multi domain proprietary code bases, but that's like 5% of my work

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't get results with the thing I'm getting results with, what other explanation would you give?

That logic only makes sense if you and the other person are working on the exact same kinds of projects.

Exact same kinds of projects with the exact same development environment, models, etc. Either he's never worked with a development team or he doesn't consider things outside his own perspective. shrug

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#108
post #20

I do have an actual diagnostic and I had the same experience over the past year with early coding harness at the beginning of the year, then Claude code since its release date. But after 1+year going that direction I really don’t want to continue. The novelty is gone, dealing with AI now feels frustrating and boring, I miss engaging deeply with the actual lower level technical challenges. I do not want to manage flee…

> I really don’t want to continue. The novelty is gone, dealing with AI now feels frustrating and boring, I miss engaging deeply with the actual lower level technical challenges. I do not want to manage fleets of agents.

I've tried to stay away for a variety of reasons (not approving of the way the tech was developed hovering up everyone's data for commercial gain, high amongst them), but the company I'm now part of (due to them buying us) is drinking deep from the GenAI water fountain, so I will very soon have no choice but to engage or be pushed out¹. I get it, I see the benefits, but it feels like turning into a manager (for GenAI agents rather than people, but still…) which is something I've always avoided because I want to tinker, I got into programming and database work because I like to play with the nitty-gritty details and I'm going to have to let that go.

To be frank, there is a sizable part of me that has wanted to be out of tech for a while² for various reasons³ and that part of me would prefer to go waiting tables if that is what it takes to escape! Maybe then I can reclaim tinkering as a hobby.

--------

[1] Redundancy would be nice, with 26 years service the statutory minimums would be more than enough to tide me by for a while, but I expect they'd not do that. I'd instead be put on a PIP for not performing (assuming they can make a case for not engaging with GenAI making me less efficient), and if I still don't play ball that'll be grounds for dismissal.

[2] Or at least take a fairly long sebatical.

[3] Not liking remote teams being a significant one, and even though I go into the office⁴ I'm still remote because most of everyone else is.

[4] which grants me the home/work separation

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#109

I can relate to this. Last October, I had a real epiphany using Claude Code at work. Suddenly, that initial inertia of starting something whether it’s drafting a JIRA ticket, structuring a PR, or just brainstorming completely vanished. I started using Claude exclusively in plan mode, and within minutes, I’d have full clarity on exactly what I wanted to do and how to do it. With the release of the Opus model, I felt 1…

"shifted my focus to architecting, problem solving, and reviewing code to make it perfect" aka write couple more prompts and combine results. Pretty exciting

Re: Task Paralysis and AI

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done a lot of introspection on this and realized that I'm very much driven by intrinsic rewards moreso than extrinsic. I got into coding over a decade before it was my career because of the exploration, learning, and puzzle/challenge aspect. Every time I have tried to be extrinsically driven (career or OSS wise) it's never worked out anyway. I could have done more to make it successful but I never cared about…

> I have done a lot of introspection on this and realized that I'm very much driven by intrinsic rewards moreso than extrinsic. > I got into coding over a decade before it was my career because of the exploration, learning, and puzzle/challenge aspect. .. > LLMs take all the intrinsic wins and leaves only the extrinsic ones. I'm not sure I understand this. For me, programming was at first a tool to use to satisfy my…

> Thinking more deeply about your words, is it that you enjoy figuring out the instructions to use to solve a problem? In other words, figuring out the algorithm and writing the code out to create something? Would you feel if you just tell the LLM what you want to create and it does it, you've lost the enjoyment?

So there's a lot of nuance to the "is it that you enjoy figuring out the instructions to use to solve a problem".

At the surface I don't enjoy typing, I don't enjoy fighting syntax checkers, rust's borrow checker, or manual memory management in my personal C projects, typing out the HDL for nand2tetris problems, etc...

However, there have been studies done decades before this LLM boom about the psychological concept called the Generation Effect. While everyone is different and it's not completely black and white, the studies have found that people learn more by actual practice (the act of doing) than just by reading material. That's 100% the case for me.

I can read blogs and resources till the cows come home and I'll have a very surface understanding of a concept. Then I'll go to write the code to implement it and it rarely works right away because there are demonstrable gaps in my understanding. I'll debug it and iterate on it until it works, and that is what actually solidifies the mental model of what I was trying to learn in my mind. Not only can I say for sure that I remember it better, that seems to form connections in my brain that allows me to apply it in other use cases, or build fascinating technical tangents.

I not only get my high from that initial "Aha!" moment when I really feel like I understand a concept enough to actually apply it in other scenarios, but I also get my high from tangents that spawn off of that concept.

In many cases, I can map a direct line of my personal projects to a set of root projects that spawned them off because of ideas I came up with while actually implementing the projects. Since I tried real hard to optimize a C# game engine for an embedded platform, I realized where limitations were and it solidified my knowledge of how old game consoles worked.

This led me down to the interest of creating a GPU out of embedded device that I can pair with I/O constrained embedded devices. This taught me soooo much about the embedded space, and while I heavily improved my C writing abilities it also made me wish I could write C# on embedded.

Since I had learned C for the embedded project (and I knew MSIL from previous deep dives), I realized I can just translate MSIL into C and that would allow me to run C# anywhere (got C# working on an SNES, the linux kernel, and on an ESP32S3).

By implementing that by hand and coming face to face with many small decisions I had to make, that solidified a bunch of concepts in my head around intermediate representations and why they are a massive benefit. Those aha moments (among others) then led me down the path to implementing a just-in-time compilation engine for NES games and the C64 OS into the .net runtime.

The learnings from that have already spawned some other ideas in my mind, which is why I'm now learning Verilog and FPGA development.

None of these projects solved any useful problem (as in nothing was created that I or anyone else would use). The satisfaction and the high I got from them was having the curiosities of a problem, ideas of a solution, and persevering (partially due to being stubborn) through it and actually accomplishing it. The satisfaction that I actually understand the concepts at a foundational level, which actually ends up breeding excitement for a whole other tangent/problem.

These learnings have indirectly helped me in my day job as well. While I'm not working on anything that sophisticated or cool, all of these actual implementations I've learned have given me direct learnings I have been able to successfully use to create better software in other domains.

So it's not the actual typing I enjoy, but the whole picture of what comes out of the end through that typing. LLMs take most of that away. It lets me ideate on a vague solution and then it goes ahead and implements it for me. Even if I'm specific on the details of the algorithm it uses, it subtly fills in the blanks and the missing pieces that I haven't cemented in my brain yet thus making me miss out of the opportunity to do so.

And it steals the accomplishment of the final thing existing. I don't feel an accomplishment by typing in google "I need a C# to C transpiler" and just downloading it. That's what LLMs feel like, even if I'm trying to steer them at a lower architectural level. I don't have the aha moments, I don't have the learnings, and I'm disconnected from the code.

Thus it feels like it's stealing all the intrinsic rewards from me, only leaving the extrinsic ones. And those are not rewards I am particularly motivated by.

Post reply on HN