[flagged]
The human-in-the-loop is tired
141–150 of 221 posts
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#142> a Berkeley Haas study which describes how AI usage increases the intensity of work The marketing around this 'study' has been impressive. They published the HBR article [0] and other promotional material [1] over 5 months ago, but as far as I can tell, the actual study itself (even a preprint version) still isn't available anywhere. Hard to evaluate how believable the results are without being able to actually see…
Another good read about automation in general is [0] Ironies of Automation. I believe the same principles can be applied to AI automation.
[0] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/644321e78cd2dd37613af...
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they find it useful. It means that the time I spent working on that helped other people solving a problem (hopefully). That’s why a was always keen on cutting some corners when and where necessary in order to think about the user first and the code beauty second. Of c…
You don't understand what the OP said, your brain can get a intrinsic reward from seeing users use your LLM work. But LLM remove all the little intrinsic rewards from coding elegant systems to get to the point where you see users using your work. It is all about the destination now where it used to be about the journey and the destination.
I wrote some software nearly 20 years ago, haven't touched it for over a decade.
The code was terrible, but I don't care, it did the job, and people still use it despite a whole team of people who have tried to replace it with "elegant" code in frameworks which have come and gone.
The reason people still use it is that it solves their needs, not the programmer's needs.
The goal was to make the user's life better, not to make a work of art
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#144> Here's a term for what I think is happening: the human reward function problem. In machine learning, a reward function tells an agent what good looks like. Writing code by hand was never easy, but it was full of small rewards. Solving a problem in your head. Understanding a gnarly bit of logic. Watching the code compile. The feeling of control. LLM-assisted programming has automated much of the work that generated…
I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they find it useful. It means that the time I spent working on that helped other people solving a problem (hopefully). That’s why a was always keen on cutting some corners when and where necessary in order to think about the user first and the code beauty second. Of c…
It seems to be a big fight between the I am interested in the end result and I am interested in the process.
Some people think the same regarding art, they dont see art in the process only in the end result.
I believe no one is right, but also no one is wrong.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#145I think that the fatigue that many people are feeling is coming from the loss of control that is the inevitable result of more momentum combined with more chaos.
Coding has generally been a slow and deliberate process, now we can go much faster if we let the LLM drive. As an intelligence, it is somewhere between a savant and a toddler, and watching from the backseat is both thrilling and terrifying. I think people will do it for a while and then realize that walking wasn't so bad, it's kind of nice. You are more likely to end up in a place you want to be.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I get that feeling more often as features are not only easier to create, but also come out more polished and consistent. Features might be easier to create, but I rarely ever get the feeling of I did that anymore from writing software. "I told the LLM to do that" is different and far less satisfying for me.
We're just getting used to the invention of the washing machine. All clothes are equally cleansed on average, with good enough results even if afterwards some particular pieces need a bit of extra care, while before we had to clean them all one by one and paying attention to minutia and details on each piece's needs. Nowadays you just control a couple buttons and hope for the best. Better to find joy in other parts o…
Disagree.
The 'washing machine' problem, was solved decades ago.
Improvements in detergent allows basically anything to be washed with cold water.
Added 'features' from late model machines do very little to improve the experience, and instead drive up purchase price, and decrease lifespan.
It's weird that so many pro-LLM arguments rely on bad analogies of other technologies that aren't perfect, and say, "We're not perfect either. That stuff is embedded in society, so you should do that for us too!"
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#147> Yes the code (sorta) writes itself, but the human reviewing, directing, and course-correcting feels worse, not better. I noticed the opposite. When reviewing and directing a colleague or subordinate, I spend probably 30% of my brain cycles, and 70% of my activation energy, to weigh the technical merit of my feedback against the human impact it will make: bruised egos, differing architectural convictions, correct an…
Amusingly, when I know my peer is just going to point his AI at my feedback, I write for their AI, not for them. I'm much more curt. Maybe not so amusing but I don't feel bad about dumping a laundry list of fixes for them.
> Amusingly, when I know my peer is just going to point his AI at my feedback, I write for their AI, not for them.
At this point, why not just talk directly to the AI?
Asking as someone who is likely leaving dev, and maybe tech completely, very soon, possibly to go wait tables, as he hates everything about the way things have gone in the last half decade or more with remote work, stupid levels of unnecessary complication everywhere (people architecting to be the next Amazon as soon as, or even before, they have three users, and just about every thing client-side), and now generative AI, and would rather be replaced by a Claude license and a monkey to use it than deal with generative AI & related agents himself…
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#148I lot of people echoing the same sentiment. It made me recall a quote from early 2026 that made waves in a few programming communities (https://x.com/ThePrimeagen/status/2026771192191824108).
Quote:
...i hate the code it generates, i hate the feeling of getting everything i ask for and nothing i want. I hate the subtle offness around vibe coded things. It is just driving me nuts.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it all depends on your personal driver: personally I rather see a product I built in whatever way used by ever growing number of people because they find it useful. It means that the time I spent working on that helped other people solving a problem (hopefully). That’s why a was always keen on cutting some corners when and where necessary in order to think about the user first and the code beauty second. Of c…
It seems to be a big fight between the I am interested in the end result and I am interested in the process. Some people think the same regarding art, they dont see art in the process only in the end result. I believe no one is right, but also no one is wrong.
There is no art without process though. The art is the process. Is an automatic piano more beautiful than a world class pianist? Of course not.
I am not strictly equating this to coding though. Like the GP sometimes I am driven more by the product than by being able to make it by hand. But that does not mean vibe coding, I still make sure the code is up to my standards.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#150>It's also, frankly, quite lonely. Programming with an LLM is an intensely solitary activity. > You and the machine, going back and forth, refining and prompting and reviewing. I just want to comment on this. Maybe im part of some spectrum, but building stuff with AI in that "solitary mode" ive found it really enjoyable. It takes me too the times 30 years ago when I was a 14 year old writing my own games on Basic and…
I get your point, but: > "If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. " Is that really true though with an LLM? I don't think so.
Oh but it really is. An LLM is no magic wand. It's a model as its name rigthly indicates.
Those of us who have worked in modeling and simulations know two principles of models:
- garbage in, garbage out
- all models are wrong, some are useful.
Point being, usually when "the model is wrong" it's because we put the wrong input (too complicated prompt for the model?) or something similar. Its just a machine, like a meat grinder that we turn then cogs.