Coding used to be an expensive task. Seeing how quickly repositories have grown with the rise of AI coding, it's clear how much people wanted to build things but were thirsting for the means to do so. Even languages like R, which were mostly used by graduate students and experts, have seen a massive increase in usage since vibe coding became popular.
Honestly, when people say AI code quality is bad, Linus himself has said it's now genuinely useful. AI is useful and writes better code than most people. Even in competitive coding, tourist lost to AI. And in the most logical field of all, mathematics, AI is churning out an enormous number of theorems.
Looking at all this, it's fair to say AI is at least at a PhD level of technical ability, and most people would admit they don't have PhD level skills. Of course, there are still many people who code better than AI. But at least when it comes to unfolding logical structures, AI has a higher chance of being more logical than humans. Within a given framework, AI constructs much more logical structures.
That's why I think the article's use of the word 'semantic' is right. It's humans who form the framework, and that's the semantic, while AI fills the empty spaces inside it. If you feed it a flawed framework, it fails.
And the fact that AI is more logical than humans is paradoxically a greater risk. Human developers can rely on tacit knowledge to make reasonable compromises even when the requirements, the framework, are sloppy. AI can't do that. If there's a logical gap in the framework humans design, AI will exploit that weakness and expand the state space into regions we can't cognitively grasp.
Programming is ultimately about how you occupy state space. The problem is that as the program grows, the cognitively inaccessible territory keeps expanding. So we distribute trust across reliable points, libraries, frameworks, and for my own code, once it exceeds tens of thousands of lines, I rely on tests and gates.
Honestly, the idea of understanding everything in a program is a purely academic claim. Once the program gets large, it's impossible. No one can know every external factor, test bug, or unexpected interaction.
The issue is that with LLMs, when the prompt input goes deeper into the semantic space, it also reaches into areas I don't understand, producing code at a depth that's untestable.
For example, I might be an expert in domain A but a beginner in domain B. If I inject expert level knowledge for domain A into the AI, the AI will try to match that level in domain B as well. That results in code I can't understand or modify, and eventually, I'm left with no choice but to replace all the code with AI generated code.
So I'm wondering what to do about this. Should I focus on gaining empirical experience in handling black boxes? Or should I stick with smaller, human written codebases?
But realistically, the current situation, where I can build bigger and touch more things, is more enjoyable to me. I think what I actually enjoyed wasn't programming itself, but the act of creating something.