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

Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

forum.cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 411 posts

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#281

Post by andai »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #191
andai wrote: post #102

This isn’t just about individual laziness—it’s a systemic arms race towards intellectual decay.[0] With programming, the same basic tension exists as with the more effective smarter AI-enhanced approaches to conceptual learning: effectiveness is a function of effort, and the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. So the problem seems to boil down to, how can we convince…

> the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. I think AI is being driven most by those interested in the "promise" of eliminating workers altogether. But, if by "AI epidemic", you more mean the increasing uptake of AI by workers/devs themselves (versus the overall frenzy), then I think the characterizations of "avoiding effort" and "laziness" are a bit harsh. I mean, of…

What I meant specifically was overreliance on AI, in the sense that I'm now hearing that many junior devs can't do basic coding without AI.

(The parallel that comes to my mind is that programmers raised without garbage collection learned to write more efficient code, and now a text editor uses several gigabytes. But yeah, someone called me a "dinosaur" already in this thread ;)

Though this "increase in incompetence" might be a case of selection effect rather than degradation of ability, i.e. people who wouldn't even have gotten the job before are now getting into the industry. I'm not sure, it's probably a bit of both.

I guess it's nothing new! See this great article from nearly 20 years ago: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#283

Post by andai »

exe34 wrote: post #165
andai wrote: post #102

This isn’t just about individual laziness—it’s a systemic arms race towards intellectual decay.[0] With programming, the same basic tension exists as with the more effective smarter AI-enhanced approaches to conceptual learning: effectiveness is a function of effort, and the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. So the problem seems to boil down to, how can we convince…

> whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague sounds like you're against corporate hierarchy too? or would you agree that having underlings do stuff for you at a reasonable price helps you achieve more?

Well, we're about to automate/replace the entire laborer class, or at least we're putting trillions of dollars into making that happen as soon as possible.

I'm not sure what effect that will have on the hierarchy, since it seems like they will replace the top half of the company as well.

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#286

Post by Dansvidania »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #110
andai wrote: post #102

This isn’t just about individual laziness—it’s a systemic arms race towards intellectual decay.[0] With programming, the same basic tension exists as with the more effective smarter AI-enhanced approaches to conceptual learning: effectiveness is a function of effort, and the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. So the problem seems to boil down to, how can we convince…

> With programming, the same basic tension exists as with the more effective smarter AI-enhanced approaches to conceptual learning: effectiveness is a function of effort, and the whole reason for the "AI epidemic" is that people are avoiding effort like the plague. That's not true. Yes, you can get more effective at something with more effort, but you can get even more effective at it if you find a way to get results…

like players can optimise all the fun out of a game, companies can optimise all competency out of workers.

while both are a consequence of a natural or logical tendency, neither is good. Once a player optimises all the fun out of a game, they stop playing it, often without experiencing it in its entirety (which I would regard as a negative outcome for both player and game)

I am not able to extrapolate with confidence what the analogous outcome would be in the company/worker side of the equation. I would confidently say, out of just anecdotal experience, it's not trending in a good direction.

edit: typo corrections

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#287

Post by artursapek »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #273
moffkalast wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those damn kids, compilers and linters doing all the work for them. Back in my day we punched bits into a card by hand. /s It's just people ranting about another level of abstraction, like always.

Another level of abstraction that has its real world cost made invisible, from job displacement to environmental damage.

I never saw anyone on HN bemoan the “environmental damage” of data centers until LLMs started popping up. As if all other software and internet tech is necessary and “worth it”?

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#288

Post by lupire »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #228
c-linkage wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so.

> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (…

I think it's more accurate to say that the company doesn't need as many people with 20+ years of experience but lower energy and as attention to commit to the company or demand higher pay, vs people with 5-20 years of experience and youthful energy and fewer external commitments.

This is especially true now that senior employees have gotten more demanding about wanting to see theit children, which didn't happen at scale in the past.

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#289

Post by lupire »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #265
sshine wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone seems to think we've magically jumped from ML into _real_ AI But we have: - LLMs pass the Turing test more convincingly than anything before - LLMs are vastly more popular than any AI/ML methods before it - "But they don't reason!" -- we're advancing chain of thought LLMs are AI (behaving artificially human) LLMs are also ML (using statistical methods)

> LLMs pass the Turing test more convincingly than anything before I know this sounds like moving the goalposts, but maybe all this does is show that the Turing Test was not sufficient? > LLMs are vastly more popular than any AI/ML methods before it Are we back in high school? Popularity contests?

The Turing test was never a deep thesis. It was an offhand illustration of the challenge facing AI efforts, citing an example of something that was clearly impossible with technology of the day.

Re: Cursor told me I should learn coding instead of asking it to generate it

#290

Post by Nullabillity »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #228
c-linkage wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so.

> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (…

> it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies.

Hence, regulation.

Post reply on HN