Live data from Hacker News

After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

albertofortin.com

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#131
post #75
post #19

> So I do a “coding review” session. And the horror ensues. Yup. I've spoken about this on here before. I was a Cursor user for a few months. Whatever efficiency gains I "achieved" were instantly erased in review, as we uncovered all the subtle and not-so-subtle bugs it produced. Went back to vanilla VSCode and still use copilot but only when I prompt it to do something specific (scaffold a test, write a migration wi…

What kind of guardrails did you give the agent? Like following SOLID, linting, 100% code coverage, templates, architectural documents before implementing, architectural rules, DRY cleanup cycles, code review guidelines (incl strict rules around consistency), review by another LLM etc?

Not the OP, but in my experience LLMs are still not quite there on guardrails. They might be for 25-50% of sessions, but it’ll vary wildly.

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#133
"Using [your] brain" is key. And your brain has to understand software engineering in the first place, before you can use it. In my project, the product manager has recently tried his hand at vibe coding. LLM produces what you would expect it to produce and as described in the article: ok but not robust code, and fast. So now he thinks he knows how fast coding should be and has gone light speed on the product, expecting engineers to produce high quality software at the speed of LLM-produced "ok code". And it's hard to keep expectations reasonable when the world is all a-hype about LLM coding.

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#135

The thing most LLM maximalists don't realize is that the bottleneck for most people is not code generation, it's code understanding. You may have doubled the speed at which you created something, but you need to pay double that time back in code review, testing and building a mental model of the codebase in your head. And you _need_ to do this if you want to have any chance of maintaining the codebase (i.e. bugfixes,…

Totally agree! Reading code is harder than writing it, and I think I spend more time reading and trying to understand than I do writing.

But this CEO I just met on LinkedIn?

"we already have the possibility to both improve our productivity and increase our joy. To do that we have to look at what software engineering is. That might be harder than it looks because the opportunity was hidden in plain sight for decades. It starts with rethinking how we make decisions and with eliminating the need for reading code by creating and employing contextual tools."

Context is how AI is a whole new layer of complexity that SWE teams have to maintain.

I'm so confused.

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#136
post #123

The thing most LLM maximalists don't realize is that the bottleneck for most people is not code generation, it's code understanding. You may have doubled the speed at which you created something, but you need to pay double that time back in code review, testing and building a mental model of the codebase in your head. And you _need_ to do this if you want to have any chance of maintaining the codebase (i.e. bugfixes,…

This is not true. It may be bad practice, but consider that the median developer does not care at all about the internals of the dependencies that they are using. They care about the interface and about whether they work or not. They usually do not care about the implementation. Code generated by LLM is not that different than pulling in a random npm package or rust crate. We all understand the downsides, but there i…

"Code generated by LLM is not that different than pulling in a random npm package or rust crate"

So I really hope you don't pull in packages randomly. That sounds like a security risk.

Also, good packages tend have a team of people maintaining it. How is that the same exactly?

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#137
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. It may be bad practice, but consider that the median developer does not care at all about the internals of the dependencies that they are using. They care about the interface and about whether they work or not. They usually do not care about the implementation. Code generated by LLM is not that different than pulling in a random npm package or rust crate. We all understand the downsides, but there i…

"Code generated by LLM is not that different than pulling in a random npm package or rust crate" So I really hope you don't pull in packages randomly. That sounds like a security risk. Also, good packages tend have a team of people maintaining it. How is that the same exactly?

> So I really hope you don't pull in packages randomly. That sounds like a security risk.

It absolutely is, but that is besides the point

> Also, good packages tend have a team of people maintaining it. How is that the same exactly?

The famously do not https://xkcd.com/2347/

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#138
Many places are quite literally forcing their software engineers to use LLMs. Complete with cursor/copilot is the ability to see usage statistics and surely at these companies these statistics will eventually be used as firing criteria.

I gave them a fair shake. However, I do not like them for many reasons. Code quality is one major reason. I have found that after around a month of being forced to use them I felt my skill atrophy at an accelerated rate. It became like a drug where instead of thinking through the solution and coming up with something parsimonious I would just go to the LLM and offload all my thinking. For simple things it worked okay but it’s very easy to get stuck in a loop. I don’t feel any more productive but at my company they’ve used it as justification to increase sprint load significantly.

There has been almost a religious quality associated to LLMs. This seems especially true among the worst quality developers and the non-technical morons at the top. There are significant security concerns that extend beyond simple bad code.

To me we have all the indicators of the maximum of the hype cycle. Go visit LinkedIn for confirmation. Unless the big AI companies begin to build nuclear power it will eventually become too expensive and unprofitable to run these models. They will continue to exist as turbo autocomplete but no further. The transformer model has fundamental limitations and much like neural networks in the 80s it’ll become more niche and die everywhere else. Like its cousins WYSIWIG and NoCode in 30 more years it’ll rise again like a phoenix to bring “unemployment” to developers once more. It will be interesting to see who among us was swimming without clothes when the water goes out.

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#139

Many places are quite literally forcing their software engineers to use LLMs. Complete with cursor/copilot is the ability to see usage statistics and surely at these companies these statistics will eventually be used as firing criteria. I gave them a fair shake. However, I do not like them for many reasons. Code quality is one major reason. I have found that after around a month of being forced to use them I felt my…

My use of cursor is limited to auto-complete, and small snippets. Even then, i can feel my skills atrophying.

use-it-or-lose-it is the cognitive rule.

Re: After months of coding with LLMs, I'm going back to using my brain

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t classify this as binary thinking - isnt the comment you are replying just defining boundary conditions? Then those two points don’t define the entire space, but the output there does at least let us infer (but not prove) something about the nature of the “function” between those two points? Where the function f is something like f: experience -> productivity increase?

You’re right that it’s possible to read the original comment as just laying out two boundary conditions—but I think we have to acknowledge how narrative framing shapes the takeaway. The way it’s written leads the reader toward a conclusion: “LLMs are great for junior, fast-shipping devs; less so for experienced, meticulous engineers.” Even if that wasn’t the intent, that’s the message most will walk away with. But th…

> LLMs are great for junior, fast-shipping devs; less so for experienced, meticulous engineers

Is that not true? That feels sufficiently nuanced and gives a spectrum of utility, not binary one and zero but "10x" on one side and perhaps 1.1x at the other extrema.

The reality is slightly different - "10x" is SLoC, not necessarily good code - but the direction and scale are about right.

Post reply on HN