Live data from Hacker News

Grief and the AI split

blog.lmorchard.com

111–120 of 404 posts

Re: Grief and the AI split

#111

I just do not want to deal with other people's AI-generated code.

Your AI can rewrite it to your own standards for free. You can tell your AI to read their code, and create a new requirements document for a clean-room implementation. Then you have your AI implement using your own requirements document.

That doesn't sound like it would help while reviewing a PR full of verbose slop in your day job.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#112
post #91

Lots of mentions of the term mourning... As they say in my country, don't sell the skin until you kill the bear. All I'm seeing around me is people dropping best practices in a FOMO driven push for speed: let's stop reviews, let's drive 5 agents in parallel, let's not even look at the code! This is going to blow up. Only after we pick up the remains we'll find a more sustainable approach for AI usage. I suspect that…

A couple of guys at work have been raving about Claude. How quick they get stuff done, how great the code is, how working any other way is a waste of time. I just had the misfortune today to wade into one of their codebases. It's 60k lines of code for something that should have been simple, and it's an absolute fucking mess. I'm gonna have to rip out most of it and start over just to get it to do what we actually nee…

> On the upside I'm getting paid to fix this shit show.

A lot of my career has been this, not due to choice but circumstance. Startups write terrible code, in general. Enterprises write terrible code. I’ve worked with both. If it becomes important enough, someone has to fix it at some point.

Current AI models seem to be job security machines for that kind of work.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#113
post #63

The important thing to remember is that for a large number of people (in the US), "work" is a place where they do things that they hate for eight hours a day, for people they hate (surveys routinely show between 40% and 60% of people are "satisfied" with their jobs). Those of us who are in the tech industry because we like actually programming computers (the "craft-lovers", in the parlance of this blog post) have bee…

[flagged]

Stealing has been used for copyright infringement since forever, it is the correct word

Re: Grief and the AI split

#114
I think the article misunderstands completely. "Craft" coders are chasing results too — we're just chasing results that last and that can be built upon. I've been in this game for a while, and a major goal of every single good programmer I've known has been to make themselves obsolete. Yes, I enjoyed meticulous hand crafted assembly, counting cycles and packing bits, but nobody had to talk me into using compilers. Yes, I've spent many fruitful hours writing basic CRUD apps but now that's easily done by libraries/frameworks I'm not eager to go back. Memory management, type systems, higher level languages, no-/low-code systems that completely remove me from some parts of the design loop, etc etc etc. All great: the point of computer programming is to have the computer do things so we don't have to.

I think the real divide we're seeing is between people who saw software as something that is, fundamentally, improvable and understandable; and people who saw it as a mysterious roadblock foisted upon them by others, that cannot really be reasoned about or changed. And oddly, many of the people in the second category use terminology from the first, but fundamentally do not believe that the first category really exists. (Fair enough; I was surprised at the second category.) It's not about intelligence or whatever, it's a mindset or perspective thing.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, let’s revise it then. If not productivity, what’s the result AI is getting that is disruptive enough to make our previous work obsolete?

At 11 this morning, I wanted to both debug an issue and take a meeting before lunch. Before AI, I would have had to just start debugging after lunch, there wouldn't have been enough time to do both. But now I had Claude debug the issue concurrently with the meeting. Its answer didn't actually make sense (I still do think I'm smarter than Claude, although the gap is narrowing!), but it showed enough of its work that I…

I can easily believe that, I agree Claude has applications.

I am disputing the idea that this is enough of a game changer to make us mourn our now lost craft. Also, I’m mentioning that we’ve discovered a world of footguns dressed as shortcuts, which we’re not taking proper care of.

First, your experience was required for that story to have a happy ending. Second, we both know someone else could probably have gone with Claude’s senseless hypothesis, asked for a fix and sent it for review. This last part is becoming pretty universal.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#117
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10x is definitely possible at a startup level. I suppose not in a big tech world (seems obvious to me, and it's not like development speed was the bottleneck there either, right?) You can choose not to believe what I say (and I genuinely understand if you do), and I can simply keep on doing it. I'm not taking it out of thin air either. tuesday I did in 8h the work I scheduled for roughly 65h. Ok, so maybe it's not 10…

Do you have testable hypothesis for how the 10x will manifest? I.e., is there a way we could (coarsely) measure this in a year or two from now?

The future will not be evenly distributed. You can't expect to see it in the productivity of the industry as a whole, or even the productivity of a large company. You might be able to see it in a medium-sized team if you measure carefully.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#118

>I think recognizing which kind of grief you're feeling is the actually useful thing here. If you're mourning the loss of the craft itself—the texture of writing code, the satisfaction of an elegant solution—that's real, and no amount of "just adapt" addresses it. You might need to find that satisfaction somewhere else, or accept that work is going to feel different. Frankly, we've been lucky there's been a livelihoo…

Well, yeah, that's what a lot of folks are sad about - they can't practice the craft concurrently with the livelihood quite as much. But if you don't have a livelihood, you probably don't have as much space for craft at all.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#119
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10x is definitely possible at a startup level. I suppose not in a big tech world (seems obvious to me, and it's not like development speed was the bottleneck there either, right?) You can choose not to believe what I say (and I genuinely understand if you do), and I can simply keep on doing it. I'm not taking it out of thin air either. tuesday I did in 8h the work I scheduled for roughly 65h. Ok, so maybe it's not 10…

Do you have testable hypothesis for how the 10x will manifest? I.e., is there a way we could (coarsely) measure this in a year or two from now?

That's a very good question. Some metrics I'm watching or considering watching right now:

- Amount of leads we're taking in (per unit of time)

- Sprint velocity changes (task complexity should stay roughly the same with AI, and team velocity increase — we've been seeing this happening)

- Hire rates (more sales people, less developers?)

- Number of projects per unit of time (of similar dimension, hard to measure)

- Length of "bugfixing buffer" before big releases (we've actually been noticing this go down)

- Another way of saying it is: number of bugs, or bugs per feature

- Drift between planned execution time and actual execution time (we've been delivering early...but I guess we'll soon adjust our estimates...or maybe not, who knows?)

- Spend on AI models

- I can't measure this, but I can sort of "feel it": but the overall feedback we get from clients, the feeling we get from them.

- Number of tests (tests have skyrocketed. Can't be sure about the quality, but, hey, it's a metric)

- Feature turnaround time (how long since "feature is proposed" until it's actually implemented)

- documentation to code ratio (not sure what we'll make of it, but there's a somewhat worrying trend here)

- team balance: is everyone slowly becoming fullstack? Do we feel that those who aren't are significantly affecting development speed? if so, that indicates that the other ones are somehow moving faster

I can't really think of any others, but I'm sure they exist.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#120
post #102

I don't know how I feel about this. I started programming in 1979. I went for a job in AI in the late 1980s and realised from the bonkers spin of the company founders that it really wasn't the 5 to 10 years away as I was being told. I went looking something that was going to deliver a result. I came back to it maybe 6 years ago when while on the bench at a consultancy. I got into trying to do various Kaggle challenge…

> Since then the world has changed. Everything I touch has AI built in. And it's really good.

Clearly you don’t use Amazon’s Alexa.

Post reply on HN