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

Grief and the AI split

blog.lmorchard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 404 posts

Re: Grief and the AI split

#181

Post by saulapremium »

sublinear wrote: post #51
simonw wrote: post #2

This sounds right to me: > Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages, the same pull request workflows. The craft-lovers and the make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical. Helps explain why some people are d…

The divide was never invisible and there has always been at least three camps . The "make-it-go" people couldn't make anything go back then either. They build ridiculous unmaintainable code with or without AI. Since they are cowboys that don't know what they're doing, they play the blame game and kiss a ton of ass. The "craft-lovers" got in the way just as much with their endless yak shaving. They now embrace AI beca…

Let me guess: you happen to be one of these lone pragmatists in the sea of incompetent ass-kissers and yak-shavers who use AI for writing code?

Re: Grief and the AI split

#182

Post by kaffekaka »

enraged_camel wrote: post #93
rudedogg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real divide is over quality and standards. We all have different thresholds for what is acceptable, and our roles as engineers typically reflect that preference. I can grind on a single piece of code for hours, iterating over and over until I like the way it works, the parameter names, etc. Other people do not see the value in that whatsoever, and something that works is good enough. We both are valuable…

I think this is a false dichotomy because which approach is acceptable depends heavily on context, and good engineers recognize this and are capable of adapting. Sometimes you need something to be extremely robust and fool-proof, and iterating for hours/days/weeks and even months might make sense. Things that are related to security or money are good examples. Other times, it's much more preferable to put something i…

Yes, it is a false dichotomy but describes a useful spectrum. People fall on different parts of the spectrum and it varies between situations and over time as well. It can remind one that it is normal to feel different from other people and different from what one felt yesterday.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#183

Post by kaffekaka »

ehnto wrote: post #59
simonw wrote: post #2

This sounds right to me: > Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages, the same pull request workflows. The craft-lovers and the make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical. Helps explain why some people are d…

It's not a pure dichotomy though. I have always been both, and slowly mixing in agentic coding for work has left me some new headspace to do "trad" programming on side projects at home. I love the exciting ideation phase, I love putting together the puzzle that makes the product work, and I also take pride in the craft.

I agree with this. Using agents at work has increased the possibility of me having energy left to code by hand at home. So much coding at work is not fulfilling, it is boilerplate and I do not learn anything from writing the Xth variation of the same thing.

Yes, those things should have been automated long ago, but they weren't, and now with coding agents much of them are.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#184

Post by kaffekaka »

k32k wrote: post #156
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see developers talking about this idea of intense and unimaginable excitement about AI. It seems orgasmic for them, like something the hardest drugs couldn't fulfill them. I find it very strange. What exactly is so exciting? I'm not disagreeing but when you say "opportunities I'm racing towards," what does that mean? This idea of "racing towards" sounds so frenetic, I struggle to know what that could mean? What I s…

I think those comments are signalling something much deeper about the individual.

Signalling what? Please expand.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#187

Post by koenschipper »

I think I'm in the middle, at first I was definitely against using any AI because I loved the craft. But over the past 12-18 months I've been using it more and more.

I still love to code just by hand for an fun afternoon. But in the long-term, I think you are going to be left behind if you refuse to use AI at all.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#188

Post by randomNumber7 »

wiml wrote: post #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. Ye…

> It's not about intelligence or whatever, it's a mindset or perspective thing.

I agree with everything except this last sentence. What you wrote looks highly intelligent and I would suspect a lot of people in the second camp are not up to par with this.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#189

Post by bigstrat2003 »

rudedogg wrote: post #17
simonw wrote: post #2

This sounds right to me: > Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages, the same pull request workflows. The craft-lovers and the make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical. Helps explain why some people are d…

I think the real divide is over quality and standards. We all have different thresholds for what is acceptable, and our roles as engineers typically reflect that preference. I can grind on a single piece of code for hours, iterating over and over until I like the way it works, the parameter names, etc. Other people do not see the value in that whatsoever, and something that works is good enough. We both are valuable…

> Also, theres the pace of advancement of the models. Many people formed their opinions last year, and the landscape has changed a lot.

People have been saying this every year for the last 3 years. It hasn't been true before, and it isn't true now. The models haven't actually gotten smarter, they still don't actually understand a thing, and they still routinely make basic syntax and logic errors. Yes, even (insert your model of choice here).

The truth is that there just isn't any juice to squeeze in this tech. There are a lot of people eagerly trying to get on board the hype train, but the tech doesn't work and there's no sign in sight that it ever will.

Re: Grief and the AI split

#190

Post by simianwords »

wiml wrote: post #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. Ye…

You are repeating the same thing. You think having good maintainable good is important - more than the first camp.

That does not mean you are correct. This mindset is useful only in serious reusable libraries and open source tools. Most enterprise code involves lots of exploring and fast iteration. Code quality doesn’t matter that much. No one else is going to see it.

When the craft coders bring their ideology to this set up, it starts slowing things down because they are optimising for the wrong target.

Post reply on HN