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

AI coding is gambling

notes.visaint.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 471 posts

Re: AI coding is gambling

#361

Post by tossandthrow »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #358
tossandthrow wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our profession is likely doomed not because we don't train people, but by the lack of demand

> I am never letting junior to midlevels into my team again From a different one of your posts So you're the one dooming the profession. Nice work, thank you!

No, I genuinely don't belive there is the future demand for that many developers.

And the developers we need do not jump through the career progression of Junior to senior.

Why the f** would I keep investing in a profession I think is dead or seriously contracting?

Re: AI coding is gambling

#362

Post by zzzeek »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #224
zzzeek wrote: post #125

coding with an LLM works if the model you are following is: you have the role of architect and/or senior developer, and you have the smartest junior programmer in the world working for you. You watch everything it does, check its conclusions, challenge it, call it out on things it didnt get quite right it's really extremely similar to working with a junior programmer so in this post, where does this go wrong? > I am…

> it's really extremely similar to working with a junior programmer Right, which is why LLMs aren't useful if you actually know what you're doing. It's a drain on your time to have to carefully check everything a junior writes, but you do it because he will learn and eventually return on that investment. With an LLM, there is no such long term payoff.

It's nuclear powered autocomplete . You can have it spit out pages of boilerplate chainsaw tests for kunernetes , fix sql queries the way you tell it to, it's enormously helpful for automating all kinds of things you previously have typed by hand 4000 times. I've put many changes from LLMs into production and there is no issue. An actual junior programmer makes way more mistakes in my experience.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#363

Post by asaiacai »

it's the perfect drug. You don't know how to code something up. Ask AI to implement it. It's broken? Ask AI to fix it for you. Will people become unable to fix things without it?

Re: AI coding is gambling

#365

Post by nickjj »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #131
nickjj wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do everything manually. Prompt, look at the code, see if it works (copy / paste) and if it works but it's written poorly I'll re-prompt to make the code more readable, often ending with me making it more readable without extra prompts. Btw, this isn't about code formatting or linting. It's about how the logic is written. > I can't imagine why everyone things AIs can just one shot everything like correctness, optimi…

Why do you orchestrate the AI manually? You could write a BUILD file that just does it in a loop a few times, or I guess if you lack build system interaction, write a python script? > If it knows how to make the code more readable and / or better for performance by me simply asking "can you make this more readable and performant?" then it should be able to provide this result from the beginning. This is the wrong way…

> Why do you orchestrate the AI manually?

I have zero trust in any of these tools and usually I use them for 1 off tasks that fit well with the model of copy / pasting small chunks of code.

> But, after you create the code, if you use separate readability and optimization feedback loops where you specifically ask it to work on those aspects of the code, it will do a much better job.

I think that's where I was going with the need to re-prompt. Why not provide the result after 5 internal rounds of readability / optimization loops as the default? I can't think of times where I wouldn't want the "better" version first.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#366

Post by gpt5 »

maplethorpe wrote: post #340
itsgrimetime wrote: post #92

All 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…

If there was a website called InfiniteAppStore, which contained every app imaginable, and where you could type in your search and it would return the code for that app, would you find that as satisfying to use as Claude Code? On the surface this does not sound as satisfying, because it more resembles shopping than coding. But once Claude Code is finally tuned to do its job perfectly, you will essentially be using tha…

In that scenario the 'joy of creation' would just shift to the 'joy of discovery'. Both of which are innate to humans.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#367

Post by PessimalDecimal »

simonw wrote: post #95
lunar_mycroft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Interns learn. LLMs only get better when a new model comes out, which will happen (or not) regardless of whether you use them now. 2. Who here thinks that having interns write all/almost all of your code and moving all your mid level and senior developers to exclusively reviewing their work and managing them is a good idea?

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…

That sounds more like mimicry without understanding, like playing the glass bead game.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#368

Post by 000ooo000 »

bakugo wrote: post #348
pdntspa wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm literally making a program. Present-progressive of the verb to program . I feel like you're pearl-clutching on semantics. By my read, programming != writing code, but writing code is most definitely programming. Oxford defines 'to program' as both.

You're not making a program. You're managing the AI that is making a program. You're a manager, maybe a designer or architect too, but not a programmer. These are well defined roles that existed well before AI. You don't get to redefine them just because you feel like you should get to be part of some imaginary "programmers' club" without doing the actual thing that defines the "programmer" role.

It's sad to watch the mental gymnastics at play. I guess by asking my mechanic to service my car, I'm a mechanic too? I want it > it gets done > I am the doer. Ridiculous.

Re: AI coding is gambling

#369

Post by Terr_ »

rsoto2 wrote: post #223
interestpiqued wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think AI literally makes even being wrong feel like getting something done. And that is the addictive part for people.

Look at all this text I have! It can't be worthless right?!

"If it were me and some coworker that made all that text in an afternoon, it would represent a lot of real labor and thought and billable-hours, so it must be valuable!"

Re: AI coding is gambling

#370

Post by pdntspa »

bakugo wrote: post #348
pdntspa wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm literally making a program. Present-progressive of the verb to program . I feel like you're pearl-clutching on semantics. By my read, programming != writing code, but writing code is most definitely programming. Oxford defines 'to program' as both.

You're not making a program. You're managing the AI that is making a program. You're a manager, maybe a designer or architect too, but not a programmer. These are well defined roles that existed well before AI. You don't get to redefine them just because you feel like you should get to be part of some imaginary "programmers' club" without doing the actual thing that defines the "programmer" role.

If you micromanage the mechanic, then yeah you might get production credits for fixing the car.

You could argue that I'm playing the manager, sure. I guess people who write software with nocode or visual data flow tools aren't programming in some form either? They aren't 'visual programming'? What about if I draw buttons and text boxes on a form in Visual Basic? I haven't hooked up the events yet, but that isn't programming?

Would you say that I am not programming if I make a synthesizer in Reaktor or Max? What about using blueprints in Unreal? Are those not programming?

This assertion that programming requires writing code is incorrect. I suspect the distinction cuts a little too close to home, which is why we are arguing semantics here.

Post reply on HN