Live data from Hacker News

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

frederickvanbrabant.com

371–380 of 490 posts

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

#371

> 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…

> Now most of the friction comes from alignment and coordination with other teams.

Then I see a solution! Why don't we simply put the entire company on one big team?

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

#372
There are a lot of ways that AI speeds up software development processes that aren't the actual software development.

I am finding that lately I do not allow LLMs to write any code I am interested in maintaining. Or if they do, I have to micromanage them and it usually takes longer. They produce mediocre solutions, and often add redundant state ("Why did you add that state?" "Because we might need it in the future")

That said, they are extremely good at:

- Dev tools: creating debug tooling, debug screens, scripts that get the job done - Auxiliary development: landing pages, "what's new" screens, tedious boilerplate, gathering strings for localization - Prototyping: building full implementations quickly so you can see all the problems rather than having to anticipate them - Pure transformation: porting from one language or paradigm to another

So while I agree with the article that the actual spec of the feature you are building needs just as much human thought, regardless of AI, the speed-ups around that are worth exploring

An example I have from a recent feature development is adding CarPlay support to an existing app. We could have talked about it and designed it for weeks, but with an LLM I was able to get it running in my car in an hour, go for a drive, and feel it to understand whether it was a valuable direction.

The code was a mess, most of it had to be thrown away, and the LLM couldn't even get the initial build functional (not much CarPlay training data, I expect). But it was an accelerator to answer the question "is it worth investing more time in this?"

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

#373
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed even more than the "hallucinations", just the code is generally quite bad. At least with concurrent and distributed systems stuff (which is really all I know nowadays), it is great at getting a prototype, but the code is generally mediocre-at-best and pretty sub-optimal. I don't know if it's because it is trained on a lot of mediocre and/or buggy code but for concurrency-heavy stuff I've been having to r…

The code is quite terrible, but no one has ever cared about code quality, at least in my experience. All they’ve ever cared about is that “it works”. It’s why an army of juniors always write most of the code. I had this same discussion at work the other day. I had an 80k line generated project dropped on my plate. It doesn’t use anything built into the web framework or orm. It’s a maintenance nightmare.

Maybe you can ask Claude to reverse engineer what the original prompt was.

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

#374
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…

I think people are concerned about the large discrepancy in concrete claims in your previous comment and subsequent empirical information. You may have seen a headline or skimmed an article and missed some details, not a big deal.

The overall impression given was inaccurate and the implicit claim of a fully working end-to-end generated compiler was inaccurate. The headlines were incomplete in a way that was intentionally misleading. It was an interesting experiment and somewhat impressive but the claims were overblown. It happens.

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

#375

> 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…

This is also the part that AI speeds up the most for me, maybe 100x productivity.

I start with something like this prompt:

"This is a research project around . What do competitors, like , , do around this, are there any blog posts or tech talks?

Are there any academic approaches or recent papers around the topic?

Can you survey any related open source projects? I know of and . Please include analysis of activity, github stars, number of downloads on npm/pypi/crates, and search the web for reviews or complaints or positive or negative blog posts from developers.

All claims should have links to the original sources, preferably with quoted text where appropriate.

We are going to write a research plan for how to produce this report.

The implementation of the plan will spawn subagents to survey breadth, then spawn subagents for each depth topic in detail"

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

#376
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The process didn’t work before because the person writing the requirements either put out vague requirements or bad requirements because they didn’t understand the business intent (or were careless). You make it sound like writing good requirements is easy. If it were easy we wouldn't need all these concepts around PMF, product pivots and the like. And even before that was Peter Naur's paper "Programming as Theory…

> You make it sound like writing good requirements is easy. I am certain I didn’t say that. To be a good product owner one needs skill, care and understanding of the business intent. If you know the business intent but lack the skill to express it as a useful requirement then it’s insufficient; if you have the skill but lack understanding or ability to understand the business intent then it’s insufficient; if you hav…

> I just wouldn’t bet that LLMs are going to make any of these realities any better, they might exacerbate those issues.

Yes, that's certainly a fair assessment, especially the more it convinces software developers they can talk to the LLM rather than talking to users.

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

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think people are concerned about the large discrepancy in concrete claims in your previous comment and subsequent empirical information. You may have seen a headline or skimmed an article and missed some details, not a big deal. The overall impression given was inaccurate and the implicit claim of a fully working end-to-end generated compiler was inaccurate. The headlines were incomplete in a way that was intention…

[deleted]

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

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've noticed even more than the "hallucinations", just the code is generally quite bad. At least with concurrent and distributed systems stuff (which is really all I know nowadays), it is great at getting a prototype, but the code is generally mediocre-at-best and pretty sub-optimal. I don't know if it's because it is trained on a lot of mediocre and/or buggy code but for concurrency-heavy stuff I've been having to r…

I'm getting the impression that LLMs are just not very good at "reasoning" about time. I have definitely had success getting a coding agent to produce decent concurrent code, but I had to basically lead it by the nose, and I strongly suspect that in most cases it would have taken less time to just do it the old fashioned way.

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

#379

I think when LLMs first came out people thought they could just say something like, "Make a Facebook clone". But now we're realizing we need to be more exact with our requirements and define things better. That has always been the bottle neck in software. When I was working we used to get requirements that literally said things like, "Get data and give it to the user". No definition of what data is, where its stored,…

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…

> Honestly, with the first step, it seems the PMs are already halfway there to implementation of the feature so I wonder if in the future they'll just do everything themselves and a few devs will be around as SDETs rather than full blown implementers.

Judging by every PM I’ve worked with, 0% chance of this happening. Much sooner would see SWEs making PMs redundant than the other way around. Unless of course you want a system that falls apart like a house of cards as soon as you get a single user for your vaporware.

Post reply on HN