I don't think AI will make your processes go faster • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#281

Post by lemonberry » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #126

satvikpendem wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what I've seen, tickets are much richer in detail now because PMs are using AI (connected to the codebase itself, like Claude Code or Codex) to fill out a template as to what and why the problem is (ie X field exists in the backend not frontend), how and where to get any data (query the backend), and what acceptance criteria is needed (frontend should have the field exposed and "submit" should push the field's dat…

I can't imagine SWEs will be reduced to SDETs anymore than attorneys will be reduced to spell-checkers on AI powered case briefs. I am a very AI-forward person, but hallucinations are becoming more pernicious than ever even as they get less frequent, especially if the code actually works. A human absolutely has to guide these processes at a macro level for sustainability for SaaS as it evolves with business needs. Ma…

This afternoon I was speaking with a friend and mentioned that I need to find a lawyer for contracts. His immediate response was, "you don't need a lawyer, just use AI". Not an avenue I'm interested in going down.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#282

Post by gwbas1c » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:36 PM UTC

I've found that AI is extremely useful when coding: For example, a task that used to take 3 days I can now do in about a day, in part because I can do things like have the agent write tests, or because I can have the agent start from some higher-level instructions which I can then clean up and debug.

BUT: The article is 100% right that I spend a lot of time doing other tasks: Reviewing other teammates' work, interacting with colleagues, planning, ect. AI isn't quite as helpful there. For example, I find that co-pilot code reviews don't add a lot of value; and the AI isn't good at judging a UI.

Maybe we'll get there soon? It's starting to look like the biggest challenge with AI is learning how to use it correctly.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#283

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #214

ethin wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was so tempted to ask if this person has ever actually met a project/product manager...

Maybe you both just have bad PMs, because just like good devs they should also be reviewing their work. My point was that it is more likely for PMs to review and edit a generated ticket than to have to write it all themselves which they often won't do.

> My point was that it is more likely for PMs to

I feel compelled to point out to you that this is a completely unsustainable, unsupportable, unsubstantiable claim. You have met ~0% of PMs, and of the ones you've met maybe you've experienced a non-zero percentage of their work, but statistically that's also very unlikely.

If you think you can say what most PMs do or what PMs are likely to do, then, I'm sorry, but you are not even thinking like an engineer. You're thinking, actually, a lot more like a PM to many of us.

> just like good devs

I'm so sorry, my sides just can't handle the starry-eyed nature of these takes. This is just too much for me.

To many of us this reads like you've never met people before. But who knows, maybe you live in Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average! If so then we're jealous, but you still should be more careful about how unrigorous your mental model is because it will make you a worse engineer.

Experience with different PMs and developers aside, the older you get in the profession the more you will hopefully realize that none of your quality effort fantasy matters. Sales happen and money rolls in independently of whether you think the PMs or the people who call themselves engineers do a "good job". Businesses thrive on sales and marketing, not engineering.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#284

Post by YZF » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

binary0010 wrote: post #208

SirHumphrey wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most software is much simpler than a c compiler.

Not really. I can make a c compiler in a couple weeks just by looking up open source libraries and copying them. I can't make any software that people will pay me money to use without taking months/years of development, research, expiramentation and iteration. Just because the original people who invented compilers had to be genius, doesn't mean anyone has to spend much time or thought in copying that work now.

I built a compiler for a simpler language as part of my compilers course in a CS degree. It was a non-trivial exercise well beyond the majority of software applications. What open source libraries did you have in mind and what are you copying?

If you can truly write a C compiler in weeks then kudos to you. How many compilers have you written so far for how many languages?

I work for big tech and I would say a large % of developers are incapable of producing a working C compiler on any reasonable time scale, certainly not weeks, even with looking at open source. I'm sure they can download one and run it. Most developers today don't even know C or assembler. They don't know how to approach the C language spec. The top 5-10% of developers/engineers can do it but even for them it's non-trivial.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#285

Post by pron » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

ianbutler wrote: post #279

pron wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where are we seeing that it failed? Anthropic said the experiment failed to produce a workable C compiler: - I tried (hard!) to fix several of the above limitations but wasn’t fully successful. New features and bugfixes frequently broke existing functionality. - The compiler successfully builds many projects, but not all. It's not yet a drop-in replacement for a real compiler. (source: https://www.anthropic.com/eng…

> Can they write production software without careful and close human supervision? Not yet. That's not disparagement, just an observation of where we are today. I never claimed they could! I just view this as a successful experiment. I don't think anthropic was making that claim with their experiment either. It feels reflexive to the moment to argue against that claim, but I tend to operate with a bit more nuance than…

The experiment failed to produce a workable C compiler despite 1. the job not being particularly hard, 2. the available specs and tests are of a completely higher class of quality than almost any software, not to mention the availability of other implementations that the model trained on.

You can call that a success (as it did something impresssive even though it failed to produce a workable C compiler) but my point in bringing this up was to show that today's models are not yet able to produce production software without close supervision, even when uncharacteristically good specs and hand-written tests exist.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#286

Post by ryanmcbride » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

Been having conversations like this with a client I've worked with. They get approved by corporate for us to use claude and ask how much faster we'll be able to move with it.

I tell them "Us engineers will probably be able to deliver some of our stuff faster but it won't have even a slight effect on the actual deliverable because we've never been the bottle neck", it's the fact that the process to get an S3 bucket allocated takes (not exaggerating) 4 weeks there.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#287

Post by nvme0n1p1 » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

ianbutler wrote: post #227

pron wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's 2026 and the notion that you can get detailed enough requirements and specifications that you can one-shot a perfect solution needs to die. It's 2026 and the idea that even with detailed-enough requirements you can one-shot even a workable (let alone perfect) solution also needs to die. Anthropic failed to build even something as simple as a workable C compiler, not only with a perfect spec ( and reference imp…

Sorry where are we seeing that it failed? It compiled multiple projects successfully albeit less optimized. " It lacks the 16-bit x86 compiler that is necessary to boot Linux out of real mode. For this, it calls out to GCC (the x86_32 and x86_64 compilers are its own). It does not have its own assembler and linker; these are the very last bits that Claude started automating and are still somewhat buggy. The demo vide…

Why are you quoting from their marketing blog as if it's a reliable source?

https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/1

> Apparently compiling hello world exactly as the README says to is an unfair expectation of the software.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#288

Post by pron » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

YZF wrote: post #284

binary0010 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I can make a c compiler in a couple weeks just by looking up open source libraries and copying them. I can't make any software that people will pay me money to use without taking months/years of development, research, expiramentation and iteration. Just because the original people who invented compilers had to be genius, doesn't mean anyone has to spend much time or thought in copying that work now.

I built a compiler for a simpler language as part of my compilers course in a CS degree. It was a non-trivial exercise well beyond the majority of software applications. What open source libraries did you have in mind and what are you copying? If you can truly write a C compiler in weeks then kudos to you. How many compilers have you written so far for how many languages? I work for big tech and I would say a large %…

> It was a non-trivial exercise well beyond the majority of software applications

That depends on how you count. By number of programs that may well be right, but that's not what matters in terms of impact on the industry, as software value roughly corresponds to the number of people working on a particular piece of software (or lines of code, if you wish). By number of people/LOC most software is not in the "simpler than a C compiler" category.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#289

Post by hnthrow0287345 » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

harrall wrote: post #215

angarg12 wrote: post #189

> This exact thing is what software developers have been begging for since the beginning of the profession: Receiving a detailed outline of the problem and what the end result should look like. > This is often the part that slows down software development. Trying to figure out what a vague, title only, feature request actually means. But that is exactly what Software Engineering is!. It's 2026 and the notion that you…

Trying to figure out the best way to solve vague requirements is why I got into engineering. If I got detailed specs, I’d just be a coding robot. I push that work off onto juniors.

If they can't at least imagine the golden path themselves and write it down, they shouldn't be in charge of the product because they will be unlikely to understand any other in depth conversations about it. And I have no idea how they'd be having coherent conversations with anyone above them either. They're also unlikely to use AI well or not identify bad-out-of-the-gate solutions. It is of course different if they're just gathering opinions or want a PoC or exploratory work done, but those aren't requirements to me.

Developers are unlikely only doing development these days. There's ops and support to do as well, so more back and forth is less time doing those things and development.

We need to meet in the middle about requirements otherwise developers will end up doing someone else's job for them.

Re: I don't think AI will make your processes go faster

#290

Post by t_mahmood » Sun, May 17, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

quantumleaper wrote: post #228

pron wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the task is very different, but also it will be months to a year until we know the results of the bun experiment.

I don't know how it could fail - Bun loses popularity among devs? Is it an objective metric? From what I understand, Node.js remains dominant across the industry as a whole, with Deno and Bun mostly used by startups. Anthropic can always fire the Opus/Mythos token machine gun on any problem (bugs, features, security) to ensure PR success, and there would be plenty of AI-sphere startups already drinking the kool-aid t…

Are we assuming, all tests pass == software done?

Do Firefox not have tests? Then how was there over 200 CVEs found?

Are we going to be comfortable running a piece of software that has 1M lines, and who knows how many zero-days will be in it.

Yes, sure they are going to use LLM to find the CVE's, and so will the hackers. You need a day or two to fix the security issue, a hacker just need to put it in use.

And good luck debugging a million line code base.

1M LOC == already failed.