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

Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

codingwithjesse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 401 posts

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#51

Post by MobiusHorizons »

vitally3643 wrote: post #43
AbbeFaria wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not alone. I was in this exact same position at MSFT and I put in my resignation. I am an L63 but the work I was doing, was something an L60-L61 could do and I frequently felt I was in one of those Bullshit jobs (courtesy of David Graeber). I was paid handsomely but once the sign on stock ran out, I saw that I was staying in the job just for security. I felt like one of those Hooli engineers who were sunbathi…

> I am an L63 but the work I was doing, was something an L60-L61 could do Maybe the problem is imagining that you need sixty three levels of granularity to describe experience or to establish superiority over sixty two categories of "lesser" engineers?

It’s not like the op invented Microsoft’s leveling system. It looks like junior engineer is 59 and 63 is something like senior engineer. I know at google there is a very meaningful difference in the work and responsibilities expected between our equivalent of 63 (L5) and 61(L4).

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#52

Post by AndrewKemendo »

AMerrit wrote: post #46
hilariously wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the businesses got into the habit of new C level means new project, obviously the old code is bad. I even had a PE buy the company I worked at, put in a new CEO, and his goal was to rewrite the entire code base in a year. I asked him what problems this would solve and never got a straight answer besides "its yucky" and "people told me they dont like it." I have had multiple upper management teams decid…

Yep, I worked at a small company that got bought by a bigger one. We had a solid if aging product to support which was one of the big players for the niche. Once there was a leadership change, 2/3 of the devs got put on building a replacement software. Then in a couple of years our subgroup got spun off and sold to PE and the v2 project was shelved for another brand new design to align with the new ownership. I left…

I think that’s actually the product incentive structure inside Google iirc

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#53

Post by sublimefire »

The post seems to not address the fact that different product phases exist which in turn affect the software. Similarly, teams are different and get assembled for different purposes. There is also a difference if software was created in the past 24 months vs past 10 years. It is very easy to attack decisions made which look messy now, because many reasons. Everything looks obvious in hindsight. And then making it ad-hominem like does not sound smart, it is a clickbait, the issues are usually more complex.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#54

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Oh, yeah.

I'm reconciling with the fact, that, if I let AI write a bunch of code, I have to depend on that AI to maintain it.

I just spent the last week, hunting down memory issues in the app I'm writing. I had a lot of help from an LLM. It rewrote most of the view controller that implements the map screen. That view controller is now 4,000 lines long (but half of that is comments), but it works extremely well. It took many context resets and rewrites to get here.

I would not have done it that way, but then, I probably also wouldn't have fixed the issue. The issue was really in Apple's MapKit, and I needed to do some gymnastics, to keep it from jetsaming my app. It's not particularly good code; but it works.

I've made the difficult choice to leave the sloppy view controller in the project, with the option of completely ripping it out, in the future, and replacing it with less "intense" code. It's pretty much "firewalled." It won't be that difficult to do it, assuming I have the bandwidth (and Apple finally fixes the memory hog issue, which seems to have been around for a long time).

There's all kinds of options that I could have (and still can) explore, but I feel that this is the best one.

But this article is absolutely correct. I think we will have a "slopocalypse," when it comes time to pay the piper for the thousands of vibe-coded applications that are certain to be authored in the next couple of years.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#55

Post by andwur »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #22

It’s literally no different than how to clean up old projects over the last 30 years of software engineering I don’t understand why all this stuff is all of a sudden “new.” It feels like we’ve got an entire generation of people who never had to spend their time factoring or doing hard infrastructure work It’s actually pretty baffling how rare it is to find somebody who has consistent experience in refactoring that is…

The problem in isolation isn't new as such, but I think there's a combination of new factors to differentiate it:

1) the speed at which AI-generated codebases grow is far in excess of what human developers can achieve. What took years to accumulate in the past can be produced in a few days/weeks.

2) past large codebases that end up in a similar state would often see a mixture of developer talent. So while you might have a few developers who produce dross, there will also be a few who can pull it back together. You start to see threads of sanity appear, and from that the potential to refactor further, rather than the uniform spaghetti monster that's near unassailable from every direction that we're now getting from the pure-AI projects.

3) external perception differs. AI has been pitched, sadly by sales, influencers and shills rather than experts in the field, to business leaders as the solution to all development problems. When you present this issue to stakeholders you're then immediately put on the defensive, e.g. it's initially viewed as negativity for the sake of negativity. With past technical debt discussions, outside of a few key parties (too often the person responsible for overseeing said debt developing), I've found that it's relatively straight forward to explain technical debt, the need to refactor and maintain systems as a going concern. For the technically disinclined it's easy to draw parallels with building maintenance: you don't expect to build an office and then never spend another cent, it takes continued investment and maintenance to keep it safe, clean, functional and compliant. The difficulty again with the AI projects here I think comes back to the accelerated timeline, as you're inevitably going to be saying months after it's created that it probably needs to be burnt to the ground in lieu of the far greater task of refactoring it. As opposed to a legacy project that has been going for years or decades, where it's a far more palatable concept to take drastic action.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#56

Post by patates »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #51
vitally3643 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am an L63 but the work I was doing, was something an L60-L61 could do Maybe the problem is imagining that you need sixty three levels of granularity to describe experience or to establish superiority over sixty two categories of "lesser" engineers?

It’s not like the op invented Microsoft’s leveling system. It looks like junior engineer is 59 and 63 is something like senior engineer. I know at google there is a very meaningful difference in the work and responsibilities expected between our equivalent of 63 (L5) and 61(L4).

Believing in that system so much to say something like that might be worse. Noting against the OP, that kind of Stockholm Syndrome can be found in my past as well.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#57

Post by Ithildin »

Like many other critiques along this line, I think the answer is: Yes, for now. For example, in my own code base, I have an agent dedicated to maintaining a sane data model. This agent reviews the plan in advance and again during code review. And then I review the code myself. This seems to be sufficient for my work, at least. YMMV. It was a good post though. I enjoyed the take and the writing.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#58

Post by progforlyfe »

This is why I always work at a new company at least 6-12 months before making any major changes. I use that time to get into the flow of how things are being done (even if I think they are not efficient). I may make some suggestions but that's it.

Of course, I'll probably never get hired again anywhere so it doesn't matter anymore.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#59

Post by zkmon »

Rockstars, AI or not, were 'successful' because they defined how success looks like. They created that perception and called it success. Not many people would bother going beyond the perceptions. They don't know how success or good code looks like. Rockstars gave them the playbook.

In reality, sometimes I wonder if there is really anything beyond perceptions.

Re: Cleaning up after AI rockstar developers

#60

Post by Waterluvian »

zkmon wrote: post #59

Rockstars, AI or not, were 'successful' because they defined how success looks like. They created that perception and called it success. Not many people would bother going beyond the perceptions. They don't know how success or good code looks like. Rockstars gave them the playbook. In reality, sometimes I wonder if there is really anything beyond perceptions.

Sure there is. Actually getting to the moon.
Post reply on HN