Live data from Hacker News

AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

playtechnique.io

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#51

In complete irony, I got back to reading actual docs for Python, React, Scala (my stacks) because I do NOT like being spoon-fed slightly-off answers. I have a feeling that the skills for fixing up AI slop will be in-demand quite soon. But, more to the point - AI code is legacy code.

Conscrewence now suggests that I read an AI summary of the article when I visit one. Thanks, I hate it. I'm reading the article because I want all the details, you insensitive clods.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#52

This is a really good post. I'm a naturally controlling person, and I care about my craft a lot, so even in my recent dabbling (on a ~3000 LOC project) with agentic coding, one of the things I naturally did from the start was not just skim the diffs that the AI generated, but decide for myself what technologies should be used, describe the logic and architecture of the code I wanted in detail — to keep my mental mode…

Something I've noticed recently, is the new Opus 4.1 model seems to be incredibly good at getting out of these cul-de-sacs.

I've always had a subscription to both ChatGPT and Claude, but Claude has recently almost one-shotted major toxic waste dumps from the previous models.

I'll still use ChatGPT, it seems to be pretty good at algorithms, and bouncing ideas back and forth. but when things go off the rails Opus 4.1 bails me out.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#53
> Claude wrote me Go tests that passed. They were beautiful, and they were worthless

Their ability to look correct exceeds their ability to be correct. Optimized for form more than function. Like politicians and management at large companies. Like the rote student who can be correct, but wont know why. Being fair though, it is a useful tool among many others in our toolbox.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#54
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect as you do more, you will create dev guides and testing guides that can encapsulate more of that direction so you won't need to micromanage it. Definitely. Prompt adherence to stuff that's in an AGENTS/QWEN/CLAUDE/GEMINI.md is not perfect ime though. >If you used Gemini CLI, you picked the coding agent with the worst output. So if you got something that worked to your liking, you should try Claude. I'm awa…

You can use Claude Code against Kimi K2, DeepSeek, Qwen, etc. The 20$ a month plan gets you access to a token amount of sonnet for coding, but that wouldn't be indicative of how people are using it. https://gist.github.com/WolframRavenwolf/0ee85a65b10e1a442e4... We gave Gemini CLI a spin, it is kinda unhinged, I am impressed you were able to get your results. After reading through the Gemini CLI codebase, it appears…

> You can use Claude Code against Kimi K2, DeepSeek, Qwen, etc.

Yeah but I wouldn't get a generous free tier, and I am Poor lmao.

> I am impressed you were able to get your results

compared to my brief stint with OpenCode and Claude Code with claude code router, qwen-code (which is basically a carbon copy of gemini cli) is indeed unhinged, and worse than the other options, but if you baby it just right you can get stuff done lol

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#55

In recent weeks, I have made huge changes to my main codebase. Pretty sweeping stuff, things that would have taken me months to get right. Both big, architecturally important things, as well as minor housekeeping tasks. None of it could have been done without AI, yet I am somehow inclined to agree with the sentiment in this article. Most of what I've done lately is, in some strange sense, just typing quickly. I alrea…

No one knows for sure, the truth is we’ll have to burn one generation as the experimental test subjects before we can get an idea of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to AI assisted education. There is a lot we will probably get wrong and some kids will be screwed, but for the generations after hopefully we can do better.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#56

In recent weeks, I have made huge changes to my main codebase. Pretty sweeping stuff, things that would have taken me months to get right. Both big, architecturally important things, as well as minor housekeeping tasks. None of it could have been done without AI, yet I am somehow inclined to agree with the sentiment in this article. Most of what I've done lately is, in some strange sense, just typing quickly. I alrea…

I think it depends on the effort put into reading and understanding the code being generated. The article makes the assumption that extended use of LLMs leads to a shift of _not reviewing and validating the code_. It is pointed out as the wrong thing to do but goes on assuming that that's what you do. I think it's like reading books.. there are various degrees of reading comprehension from skimming for content/tone, to reading for enjoyment, to studying for applications, to active analysis like preparing for a book club. There isn't a prescribed depth of reading for any document but context and audience has an effect on what depth is appropriate. With code, if it's for a one-off utility that can be verified for a specific application, yeah why not just look at its output and skip the code, full vibing, especially if it doesn't have any authority on its own. But if it is business critical it better still have at least two individuals read over it, and other CONTRIBUTING-related policies.

And it's not just complacence.. this illusion of mastery cuts even harder for those who haven't really developed the skills to do a review of the code. And, some code is just easier to write than it is to read, or easier to generate with confidence using an automata or some macro-level code, which often the LLMs will not produce, in preference to repeated-in-various-styles inlining of sub-solutions, unless you have enough mastery to know how to ask for the appropriate abstraction and would still rather not just write the deterministic version.

   > I wonder, is there a danger to giving the tool to a new apprentice? If I send my kid off to learn coding using the AI, will it be a mess
As long as your kid develops the level of mastery needed to review the code, and takes the time to review it, I don't think it'll be a mess (or not too large to debug). A lot of this depends on how role models use the tool, I think. If it's always nonchalant "oh we'll just re-roll or change the prompt and see" then I doubt there will be mastery. If the response is "hmm, *opens debugger*" then it's much more likely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with holding back on access to LLM code generators but that's like saying no access to any modern LLMs at this point, so maybe that's too restrictive; tbh I'm glad that's not a decision I'm having to make for any young person these days. But separate from that you can still encourage a status quo of due diligence for any code that gets generated.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#57

There used to be a time when you needed to be very skilled woodworker in order to make nice cabinets. There still are, but the number of machine / CNC made cabinets outnumber artisanal 100% hand-made cabinets by some incredible number. For every masterpiece made by a Japanese cabinet maker, imagine how many Ikea cabinets there are out there... And that's how I believe software engineering will end up. Hand crafted co…

Those CNC-made cabinets are driven by software written by a human being. And I'm not talking about the CNC software itself: CNC machine operators _code_, even if it's not obvious to those who don't know somebody who works with CNC machines. They provide descriptions to the machine in the form of M-Code and G-Code.

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

(I know this because my previous landlady's husband was a CNC machine operator.)

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#59

There used to be a time when you needed to be very skilled woodworker in order to make nice cabinets. There still are, but the number of machine / CNC made cabinets outnumber artisanal 100% hand-made cabinets by some incredible number. For every masterpiece made by a Japanese cabinet maker, imagine how many Ikea cabinets there are out there... And that's how I believe software engineering will end up. Hand crafted co…

Those CNC-made cabinets are driven by software written by a human being. And I'm not talking about the CNC software itself: CNC machine operators _code_, even if it's not obvious to those who don't know somebody who works with CNC machines. They provide descriptions to the machine in the form of M-Code and G-Code. Your analogy doesn't work at all. (I know this because my previous landlady's husband was a CNC machine…

C'mon, this is not hard.

What takes more time to master: Learning how to be a competent woodworker, so that you can build a piece of complex furniture from scratch, by hand. Or learning how to punch in instructions, following templates.

The first can take years to master, the latter is done in mere months. You don't need to be a master woodworker to operate a CNC machine.

With LLMs, we're now at the point where non-programmers can get working CRUD apps. Nearly impossible only 2 years ago. LLMs are encroaching what is the bread and butter to thousands of webdevs out in the world.

You can still be a rock star dev that writes world class code, but you better be working for employers that value it - because AI will force prices down. When customers discover that a $20 subscription, or service can create them things that would previously cost thousands of dollars in dev money, there's no way back. Once that cat is out of the bag, you won't get it back in.

Re: AI doesn't lighten the burden of mastery

#60
post #52

This is a really good post. I'm a naturally controlling person, and I care about my craft a lot, so even in my recent dabbling (on a ~3000 LOC project) with agentic coding, one of the things I naturally did from the start was not just skim the diffs that the AI generated, but decide for myself what technologies should be used, describe the logic and architecture of the code I wanted in detail — to keep my mental mode…

Something I've noticed recently, is the new Opus 4.1 model seems to be incredibly good at getting out of these cul-de-sacs. I've always had a subscription to both ChatGPT and Claude, but Claude has recently almost one-shotted major toxic waste dumps from the previous models. I'll still use ChatGPT, it seems to be pretty good at algorithms, and bouncing ideas back and forth. but when things go off the rails Opus 4.1 b…

I’d only recently given Claude a try (been using ChatGPT for a while) and I was blown away. Both for conversational things as well as coding. Enough of a tangible difference for me to cancel my ChatGPT subscription and switch.
Post reply on HN