My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

I agree, the latest models are not bad at Rust. Most issues I have when writing LLM-assisted Rust code are related to dependencies.

There are a lot of v0.x.x crates in Rust with frequent updates and breaking changes. As LLMs "learn" from code in the wild, they are exposed to different way to use the same crate and thus fail to produce working code "from memory".

But as soon as you explain how to use it with the latest syntax, they are able to fix the code.

Hence the flurry of articles, controversial interviews and aggressive marketing and the pitch to replace all white color jobs.

He forgot "but the 15 year old behemoth codebase that doesn't fit in any context window and isn't well documented and changing of which requires changing tons of ancillary files not easily connected to each other logically".

That's what a lot of the highest paid programmers work on. I work in such a firm and the agent they have for us is incapable. And it's the latest and greatest from whoever coders love to rave about online.

I love that AI written tests and other generally greenfield things work well and can be vetted quicker than writing and getting the code oneself. But for most more complex tasks it's not there. I'm ready when it is though

This blog post makes me actively want to use something besides fly. Putting aside the massive condescension in the article…

… most of the code you write is tedious boilerplate? What do you do all day? I can honestly say the most tedious code I write is migrations, because I have to edit three files. I do this like once a week. It would take way longer to explain to an ai what to do than just do it myself.

… you run the ai on your procrastination and as a result do heads down work? Seriously? 1, programming with AI is like playing a slot machine. It keeps you hooked just on the verge of winning the jackpot for far longer than the tedious task would have distracted you. And let’s say a good agentic case - it runs for 30 minutes before it’s done. That’s not even enough time to “boot up” a serious problem, and your already having to put it aside to go check the work you yourself are saying is mediocre? And you’re advocating to run multiple of these? Even the most ardent vibe covers I know talk about babysitting the agents. How is this unlocking deep work time in any way shape or form?

… craft is relagated to hobbies? I guarantee you, this person loves Linear. It was probably written on a MacBook. This whole “we solve real problems” BS is just a cop out because being great is hard.

… mediocre code is good code? All code is a liability. If you generate 10 times the code, and are admitting it’s the lowest bar of quality possible, it is at a minimum 10x the liability on your shoulders.

… letting LLMs refactor your tests? Serious question, who actually does this? Because I would LOVE to have LLMs write tests for me. I have tried every. single. time. I need to write something that needs a lot of tests to ask LLMs for tests for TWO YEARS, and not once have I ever used a single test it generates. It generates worse tests than it does code, and the last thing I want is 42 asserts in 8 tests across 600 LoC that nobody understands that poorly tests what should have been 2 asserts in 2 tests in 12 lines of code.

This article doesn’t address literally THE argument I have against LLM usage: that it will degrade major human skills like reading, writing, and yes, coding

But I’m at least grateful for LLMs making me more aware of how important it is for me to focus on my own skills building. I will never use it because I value having those skills sharp