321–330 of 424 posts
These chores are exactly what AI is best at
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI allows you to spend nearly all of your time there if you wish, from concept through troubleshooting It does not! If you're using interactive IDE AI, you spend your time keeping the AI on the rails, and reminding it what the original task is. If you're using agents, then you're delegating all the the mid-level/tactical thinking, and perhaps even the planning, and you're left with the task of writing requirements…
From my experience, current AI models stay on the rails pretty well. I don't need to remind them of the task at hand.
Broadly the critique is valid where it applies; I don’t know if it accurately captures the way most people are using LLMs to code, so I don’t know that it applies in most case. My one concrete pushback to the article is that it states the inevitable end result of vibe coding is a messy unmaintainable codebase. This is empirically not true. At this point I have many vibecoded projects that are quite complex but work p…
Broadly the critique is valid where it applies; I don’t know if it accurately captures the way most people are using LLMs to code, so I don’t know that it applies in most case. My one concrete pushback to the article is that it states the inevitable end result of vibe coding is a messy unmaintainable codebase. This is empirically not true. At this point I have many vibecoded projects that are quite complex but work p…
100x is such a crazy claim to me - you’re saying you can do in 4 days what would have previously taken over a year. 5 weeks and you can accomplish what would have taken you a decade without LLMs.
Every time I read stuff like this I honestly wonder if the author is using the same tools I am. I can have Claude Code bang out everything from boilerplate to a working prototype to a complex algorithm embedded in a very complex and confusing code base. It’s not correct 100% of the time but it’s pretty damn close. And often times it comes up with algorithms I would have never thought of initially. These things are at…
The difficulty is we skeptics have read claims like yours tens of times, and our response is always, "please share a repo built this way and an example of your prompts," and I at least have never seen anyone do so. I'd love for what you say to be possible. Comments like yours often cause me to take another crack at agentic workflows. I'm disappointed every time.
You are just not a true scotsman.
And when they link something is one of those repos full of sloop and no code.
I am becoming paranoid and wonder how many people here can even code.
I appreciate these takes, but I can't help to think this is just the weird interim time where nothing is quite good enough, but in a year an article like this would clearly be "overthinking" the problem. Like when those in the know could clearly see the internet's path to consuming everything but it just hasn't happened yet so there were countless articles trying to decide if it was a fad or not, a waste of money, ba…
Now it works, not like before, gets old after a while.
This omits the deep knowledge required for traditional coding. This opens up coding to non devs, e.g. product managers. For vibe coding you need systems thinking, planning and logic, but less craftmansship. For PO's the chart looks different, here the traditional flow contains: "polish concepts, make mocks, make stories, dailies, handovers, revisions, waiting for devs busy with other things" The vibing PO has none of…
The deep knowledge really isn’t all that deep. A couple years in the weeds and you have it. What this really hurts is outsourced devs. In the past a non coding person could come up with the spec and hire someone from a developing nation to make it on the cheap to that spec. It is still possible to work like this of course, resulting in working code compared to llm that might hallucinate a passing test condition that…
Or you are just writing the same React components every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there’s another force at work here that to me answers the question in a different way. Agents also massively decrease the difficulty of coming into someone else’s messy code base and being productive. Want to make a quick change or fix? The agent will likely figure out a way to do it in minutes rather the than hours it would take me to do so. Want to get a good understanding of the architecture and code layout? Wo…
In my experience this approach is kicking the can down the road. Tech debt isn't paid down, it's being added to, and at some point in the future it will need to be collected. When the agent can't kick the can any more who is going to be held responsible? If it is going to be me then I'd prefer to have spent the hours understanding the code.
This is actually a pretty huge question about AI in general
When AI is running autonomously, where is the accountability when it goes off the rails?
I'm against AI for a number of reasons, but this is one of the biggest. A computer cannot be held accountable therefore a computer must never make executive decisions
Every time I read stuff like this I honestly wonder if the author is using the same tools I am. I can have Claude Code bang out everything from boilerplate to a working prototype to a complex algorithm embedded in a very complex and confusing code base. It’s not correct 100% of the time but it’s pretty damn close. And often times it comes up with algorithms I would have never thought of initially. These things are at…
There is this statement in the article: LLMs are lightning fast junior engineers. I don't know if that is right or wrong. To me, good LLMs are a lightning fast better version of me. That means that I can write code like some LLMs but it'll take me days to do it (if I use a language that I'm not good at, for example Rust) but with carefully crafted prompts, LLMs take maybe half an hour or less.