[deleted]
AI coding is gambling
181–190 of 471 posts
Re: AI coding is gambling
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane, because I literally haven't written a line of code myself in months This is exactly the sort of mentality that makes me hate this technology You finally feel good at programming despite admitting that you aren't actually doing it Please explain why anyone should take this seriously?
Well for one, programming actually sucks. Punching cards sucks. Copywriting sucks. Why? Well, implementation for the sake of implementation is nothing more than self-gratifying, and sole focus on it is an academic pursuit. The classic debate of which programming language is better is an argument of the best way to translate human ideas of logic into something that works . Sure programming is fun but I don't want to d…
> Well for one, programming actually sucks
Speak for yourself. Programming is awesome. I love it so much and I hate that AI is taking a huge steaming dump on it
> So, when I encounter someone who doesn't pin value into building something that performs useful work, only the actual journey of it, regardless of usefulness of said work, I take them as seriously as an old man playing with hobby trains
Growing and building rapidly at all costs is the behavior of a cancer cell, not a human
I love model trains
Re: AI coding is gambling
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that the "humans learn, LLMs don't" argument holds any more with coding agents. Coding agents look at existing text in the codebase before they act. If they previously used a pattern you dislike and you tell them how to do differently, the next time they run they'll see the new pattern and are much more likely to follow that example. There are fancier ways of having them "learn" - self-updating CLAUDE.md…
It is a matter of fact that LLMs cannot learn. Whether it is dressed up in slightly different packaging to trick you into thinking it learns does not make any difference to that fact.
Sure, LLMs can't learn. I'm saying that systems built around LLMs can simulate aspects of what we might call "learning".
Re: AI coding is gambling
#184I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…
You (in theory) have more control over the quality of the team you are managing, than the quality of the models you are using. And the quality of code models puts out is, in general, well below the average output of a professional developer. It is however much faster, which makes the gambling loop feel better. Buying and holding a stock for a few months doesn't feel the same as playing a slot machine.
What theory is that?
My experience is the absolute opposite. I am much more in control of quality with Ai agents.
I am never letting junior to midlevels into my team again.
In fact, I am not sure I will allow any form of manual programming in a year or so.
Re: AI coding is gambling
#185Assigning work to an intern is gambling: they're inherently non-deterministic and it's a roll of the dice whether the work they do will be good enough or you'll have to give them feedback in order to get to what you need.
[deleted]
Re: AI coding is gambling
#186All of this new capability has made me realize that the reason i love programming _isn't_ the same as the OP. I used to think (and tell others) that I loved understanding something deeply, wading through the details to figure out a tough problem. but actually, being able to will anything I can think of into existence is what I love about programming. I do feel for the people who were able to make careers out of falli…
One size never fits all. I am old enough to remember what a game changer Spreadsheets (VisiCalc) where. They made the personal computer into a SwissArmy knife for many people that could not justify investing large sums of money into software to solve a niche problem. Until that time PCs simply were not a big thing. I believe AI will do something similar for programming. The level of complexity in modern apps is high…
I remember when my dev team included some people using Emacs, some using Eclipse (this was pre-VS Code), and some using IntelliJ.
Developers will always disagree on the best tool for X ... but we should all fear the Luddites who refuse to even try new tools, like AI. That personality type doesn't at all mesh with my idea of a "good programmer".
Re: AI coding is gambling
#187All of this new capability has made me realize that the reason i love programming _isn't_ the same as the OP. I used to think (and tell others) that I loved understanding something deeply, wading through the details to figure out a tough problem. but actually, being able to will anything I can think of into existence is what I love about programming. I do feel for the people who were able to make careers out of falli…
> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane Yes, it is insane. You couldn't torture this confession out of me. But that's the drug they're selling you, isn't it? You don't even write code, but you're getting a self-inflated sense of worth. It must be addicting! Of course, whether or not the programs you prompt are actually good surely has no relation to whether you feel they're good, since yo…
> Anyone can be an "ideas guy".
I disagree with this. I've worked with amazing "ideas guys" who just cranked out customer insights and interesting concepts, and I've worked with lousy ones, who just kinda meandered and never had a focused vision beyond a milquetoast copy of the last thing they saw. There's a real skill to forming good concepts, and it's not a skill everyone has!
Re: AI coding is gambling
#188I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…
AI coding is gambling on slot machines, managing developers is betting on race horses.
What is it with you guys and stallions?
Re: AI coding is gambling
#189I think this article makes a valid point. However, if AI coding is considered gambling, then being a project manager overseeing multiple developers could also be seen as a form of gambling to a certain degree. In reality, there isn't much difference between the two. AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entire…
> AI models are non-deterministic, and humans are also non-deterministic. You could assign the same task to two different developers and end up with entirely different results. Except, one can explain themselves (humans) and their actions can be held to account in the case of any legal issue whereas an AI cannot; making such an entity completely unsuitable for high risk situations. This typical AI booster comparison…
Love that you needed to make it clear that it is humans that can explain themselves..
Employees can only be held accountable with severe malice.
There is a good chance that the person actually responsible (eg. The ceo or someone delegated to be responsible) will soon prefer to have AIs do the work as their quality can be quantified.
Re: AI coding is gambling
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I finally feel like I'm _good_ at programming, which is insane, because I literally haven't written a line of code myself in months This is exactly the sort of mentality that makes me hate this technology You finally feel good at programming despite admitting that you aren't actually doing it Please explain why anyone should take this seriously?
Different definitions of programming. OP defines it as getting the machine to do as he wants. You define it as the actual act of writing the detailed instructions.
It is very difficult to get the machine to do what you want without the detailed instructions
If you have an LLM generate the instructions, then the LLM is programming, you're just a "prompter" or something. Not a programmer