Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

ankursethi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 479 posts

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#361

Post by p1esk »

bigbuppo wrote: post #332

Also... if your workflow is "think hard, let LLM write it, read what AI wrote, think hard about what AI wrote, re-type what AI wrote, fix what AI wrote"... Where in the heck are the efficiency gains? Couldn't you just drop the LLM part of it and save the company a trillion dollars in tokens?

I stopped writing code completely about a year ago, stopped reading code completely about 8 months ago, and I feel like I stopped thinking hard about anything at work about 6 months ago. To clarify - I still produce code for a living - all day, every day. Not sure about efficiency gains but I got promoted 3 weeks ago :)

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#362

Post by shermantanktop »

I’ve got similar concerns about skill rot, but I also have chronic RSI and some hand arthritis. LLM assistance plus modern voice models are a godsend but it’s not the same as typing every character. But I can’t really type every character anymore. I can read it all but…falling into skimming is very hard to avoid.

So I’m grabbing the double-edge sword with my bare hands hoping to stay ahead of the brain rot…somehow.

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#363

Post by andsoitis »

colordrops wrote: post #336
ablob wrote: post #329

So we are reduced to code monkeys mindlessly re-typing what an LLM wrote to increase potential understanding... Whatever this approaches, it is not a state of software engineering I find desirable.

I think some sort of visual paradigm is where we will end up. Something like Star Trek, where the system architecture and modules are visually represented in 3D space, and you see how the organization changes with realtime low-latency animation representing the changes as they are made. So you are still in control but just at a higher level. I see some prototypes and weak implementations of this sort of thing but sur…

[flagged]

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#364

Post by jgord »

ncallaway wrote: post #344
bigbuppo wrote: post #332

Also... if your workflow is "think hard, let LLM write it, read what AI wrote, think hard about what AI wrote, re-type what AI wrote, fix what AI wrote"... Where in the heck are the efficiency gains? Couldn't you just drop the LLM part of it and save the company a trillion dollars in tokens?

I've found I can get quite a bit of use out of it as a basically ever-present rubber duck. Using a cheap model, I usually spend - here's the problem I'm trying to solve: - here's my initial plan for the design: - is there anything I'm not thinking about or my plan is missing? It'll occasionally pop out a suggestion that I like more than my original plan, or it'll give me some new angles to think through the original…

I worry about the finger-on-the-scale mean-reversion aspect of this .. the LLM corralling you ever so gently back towards the median.

otoh, LLMs really could become the great illustrated primer for educating kids in science / history / languages etc.

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#365

Post by 20k »

bigbuppo wrote: post #332

Also... if your workflow is "think hard, let LLM write it, read what AI wrote, think hard about what AI wrote, re-type what AI wrote, fix what AI wrote"... Where in the heck are the efficiency gains? Couldn't you just drop the LLM part of it and save the company a trillion dollars in tokens?

LLM speedups have always been predicated on not understanding the code they produce as well as if you wrote it yourself. Reviewing even well written code to understand it in depth, has always taken longer than simply writing it yourself - let alone sloppy LLM code that you have to fix

People are, in heavy LLM systems, realising that the most valuable commodity is engineers knowing WTF is going on, and that loss of understanding of your codebase is the #1 blocker to actually getting things done. Any senior engineer knows this all too well

Its why I suspect we never tend to see any longer term LLM productivity stats being published, and why I extra suspect that LLMs have failed to achieve any kind of penetration into open source code. If you take away the pressure to produce bad code, writing by hand clearly wins massively in the long term. Its classic short term gains for a long term penalty

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#367

Post by 20k »

ablob wrote: post #329

So we are reduced to code monkeys mindlessly re-typing what an LLM wrote to increase potential understanding... Whatever this approaches, it is not a state of software engineering I find desirable.

heaven forbid we use our meat to actually completely understand it in the first place

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#368

Post by literalAardvark »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #215
mythrwy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs aren't perfect and they have problems, but often they write better code than humans. At least this human. It seems they run into problems with larger concepts and general organization and need guidance at the moment but for a single code file they often do better then I would have.

If an LLM writes better code than you, that says more about you than anything else (either your ability to write code or your ability to evaluate LLMs). The code they write is garbage.

If you write more good code by hand than by agent in 2026 that says more about you than anything else (either your ability to give instructions or your ability to delegate). The code they write is above average.

Re: Prevent cognitive debt by manually retyping LLM-generated code

#369

Post by 20k »

estebarb wrote: post #112

This will cause cognitive debt anyway. As mentioned in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.21972v1 : "When students rely on these outputs as a substitute for their own reasoning or critical engagement, the learning process is fundamentally compromised. Genuine learning requires the active construction of meaning, integration of knowledge, and reflective engagement with content. These processes cannot occur through passive con…

Its weird how absolutely desperate we are to avoid humans actually using their brains at any step of the coding process. I don't know if we just need to tell people that its fine to need to think about things, and that its actively healthy to do so. Learning is good for you, and no chatgpt isn't good enough to avoid using your meat

If you don't engage your brain, it'll rot. That's far more important in the long term than a 5% productivity boost or something. I have no idea why you'd trade off your entire technical development and skillset training, for the most short term gains, it doesn't even theoretically make sense if you care about long term productivity

Post reply on HN