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

The AI coding trap

chrisloy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 424 posts

Re: The AI coding trap

#21

Post by tptacek »

boredemployee wrote: post #16
tptacek wrote: post #2

It's a fine post, but two canards in here: First, skilled engineers using LLMs to code also think and discuss and stare off into space before the source code starts getting laid down. In fact: I do a lot, lot more thinking and balancing different designs and getting a macro sense of where I'm going, because that's usually what it takes to get an LLM agent to build something decent. But now that pondering and planning…

DO NOT WRITE ANY CODE YET. haha I always do that. I think it's a good way to have some control and understand what it is doing before the regurgitation. I don't like to write code but I love the problem solving/logic/integrations part.

I'm surprised (or maybe just ignorant) that Claude doesn't have an explicit setting for this, because it definitely tends to jump the gun a lot.

Re: The AI coding trap

#23

Post by specproc »

EGreg wrote: post #10
reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

Most of my anti-AI takes are either: 1) Bad actors using AI at scale to do bad things 2) AI just commodifying everything and making humans into zoo animals

My anti AI take is that it's no fun.

I'm on a small personal project with it intentionally off, and I honestly feel I'm moving through it faster and certainly having a better time. I also have a much better feel for the code.

These are all just vibes, in the parlance of our times, but it's making me question why I'm bothering with LLM assisted coding.

Velocity is rarely the thing in my niche, and I'm not convinced babysitting an agent is all in all faster. It's certainly a lot less enjoyable, and that matters, right?

Re: The AI coding trap

#24

Post by jayd16 »

reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

My take is just that debugging is harder than writing so I'd rather just write it instead of debugging code I didn't write.

Re: The AI coding trap

#25

Post by AnotherGoodName »

bgwalter wrote: post #15
reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

"AI" does not encourage real thinking. "AI" encourages hand waving grand plans that don't work, CEO style. All pro-"AI" posts focus on procedures and methodologies, which is just LARPing thinking. Using "AI" is just like speed reading a math book without ever doing single exercise. The proponents rarely have any serious public code bases.

I see a lot of comments like this and it reflects strongly negatively on the engineers who write it imho. As in I've been a staff level engineer at both Meta and Google and a lead at various startups in my time. I post open source projects here on HN from time to time that are appreciated. I know my shit. If someone tells me that LLMs aren't useful i think to myself "wow this person is so unable to learn new tools they can't find value in one of the biggest changes happening today".

That's not to say that LLMs as good as some of the more outrageous claims. You do still need to do a lot of work to implement code. But if you're not finding value at all it honestly reflects badly on you and your ability to use tools.

The craziest thing is i see the above type of comment on linked in regularly. Which is jaw dropping. Prospective hiring managers will read it and think "Wow you think advertising a lack of knowledge is helpful to your career?" Big tech co's are literally firing people with attitudes like the above. There's no room for people who refuse to adapt.

I put absolute LLM negativity right up there with comments like "i never use a debugger and just use printf statements". To me it just screams you never learnt the tool.

Re: The AI coding trap

#26

Post by inciampati »

Effective coding is not code first think later.

LLMs aren't effective when used this way.

You still have to think.

IMO a vibe coder who is speaking their ideas to an agent which implements them is going to have way more time to think than a hand coder who is spending 80% of their time editing text.

Re: The AI coding trap

#27

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

EGreg wrote: post #10
reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

Most of my anti-AI takes are either: 1) Bad actors using AI at scale to do bad things 2) AI just commodifying everything and making humans into zoo animals

More specifically for (1), the combined set of predators, advertisers, businesses, and lazy people using it to either prey or enshittify or cheat will make up the vast majority of use cases.

Re: The AI coding trap

#28

Post by analog8374 »

reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

Here's one

AI can only recycle the past.

Re: The AI coding trap

#29

Post by belter »

bgwalter wrote: post #15
reb wrote: post #7

I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. The plan-build-test-reflect loop is equally important when using an LLM to generate code, as anyone who's seriously used the tech knows: if you yolo your way through a build without thought, it will collapse in on itself quickly. But if you DO apply that loop, you get to spend much more ti…

"AI" does not encourage real thinking. "AI" encourages hand waving grand plans that don't work, CEO style. All pro-"AI" posts focus on procedures and methodologies, which is just LARPing thinking. Using "AI" is just like speed reading a math book without ever doing single exercise. The proponents rarely have any serious public code bases.

> "AI" encourages hand waving grand plans that don't work

You described the current AI Bubble.

Re: The AI coding trap

#30

Post by lm28469 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #25
bgwalter wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI" does not encourage real thinking. "AI" encourages hand waving grand plans that don't work, CEO style. All pro-"AI" posts focus on procedures and methodologies, which is just LARPing thinking. Using "AI" is just like speed reading a math book without ever doing single exercise. The proponents rarely have any serious public code bases.

I see a lot of comments like this and it reflects strongly negatively on the engineers who write it imho. As in I've been a staff level engineer at both Meta and Google and a lead at various startups in my time. I post open source projects here on HN from time to time that are appreciated. I know my shit. If someone tells me that LLMs aren't useful i think to myself "wow this person is so unable to learn new tools th…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN