Live data from Hacker News

My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

fly.io

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#691
I think this article is pretty spot on — it articulates something I’ve come to appreciate about LLM-assisted coding over the past few months.

I started out very sceptical. When Claude Code landed, I got completely seduced — borderline addicted, slot machine-style — by what initially felt like a superpower. Then I actually read the code. It was shockingly bad. I swung back hard to my earlier scepticism, probably even more entrenched than before.

Then something shifted. I started experimenting. I stopped giving it orders and began using it more like a virtual rubber duck. That made a huge difference.

It’s still absolute rubbish if you just let it run wild, which is why I think “vibe coding” is basically just “vibe debt” — because it just doesn’t do what most (possibly uninformed) people think it does.

But if you treat it as a collaborator — more like an idiot savant with a massive brain but no instinct or nous — or better yet, as a mech suit [0] that needs firm control — then something interesting happens.

I’m now at a point where working with Claude Code is not just productive, it actually produces pretty good code, with the right guidance. I’ve got tests, lots of them. I’ve also developed a way of getting Claude to document intent as we go, which helps me, any future human reader, and, crucially, the model itself when revisiting old code.

What fascinates me is how negative these comments are — how many people seem closed off to the possibility that this could be a net positive for software engineers rather than some kind of doomsday.

Did Photoshop kill graphic artists? Did film kill theatre? Not really. Things changed, sure. Was it “better”? There’s no counterfactual, so who knows? But change was inevitable.

What’s clear is this tech is here now, and complaining about it feels a bit like mourning the loss of punch cards when terminals showed up.

[0]: https://matthewsinclair.com/blog/0178-why-llm-powered-progra...

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#692
Who are these friends? Are they in the room with us right now? Look, maybe my experience is atypical but I’m an AI skeptic and I know plenty of others. I’ve never heard people claim that LLMs are a fad or going to go away.

I’ve seen lots of people:

* think that conflating LLMs and “AI” produces a lot of poorly reasoned arguments

* doubt the economic narratives being built around LLM technology

* think the current rate of progress in the technology is basically flat

* think most “AI companies” resemble most crypto companies

An addendum to the last point: very few crypto skeptics deny that BitCoin is a thing or think it’s going away, either. It’s just strawmanning.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#693

I use AI every day, basically as a "pair coder." I used it about 15 minutes ago, to help me diagnose a UI issue I was having. It gave me an answer that I would have figured out, in about 30 minutes, in about 30 seconds. My coding style (large files, with multiple classes, well-documented) works well for AI. I can literally dump the entire file into the prompt, and it can scan it in milliseconds. I also use it to help…

>>I'm not afraid to ask "stupid" questions -That is critical.

AI won't judge and shame you in front of the whole world, for asking stupid questions, or not RTFM'ing well enought, like Stackoverflow users do. Nor will it tell you, your questions are irrelevant.

I think this is the most killer AI feature ever.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#694

I think this article is pretty spot on — it articulates something I’ve come to appreciate about LLM-assisted coding over the past few months. I started out very sceptical. When Claude Code landed, I got completely seduced — borderline addicted, slot machine-style — by what initially felt like a superpower. Then I actually read the code. It was shockingly bad. I swung back hard to my earlier scepticism, probably even…

> Then I actually read the code.

This is my experience in general. People seem to be impressed by the LLM output until they actually comprehend it.

The fastest way to have someone break out of this illusion is tell them to chat with the LLM about their own expertise. They will quickly start to notice errors in the output.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#695
I've only just realized how bad AI is for me, in a manner I didn't at all expect. I don't use it. I don't want to use it. I hate it. As another commenter here nicely put it, I want to do, not tell. I like writing code. I like solving problems. I like doing the work myself. I like struggling and then, the next day, finding that my capabilities have grown.

And yet I'm overwhelmingly demoralized and depressed about AI's encroachment on software engineering, so much so that I am finding it difficult to marshal cognitive resources. I'm finding it harder and harder to engage with coding problems, even though I love programming.

The last thing I expected was that AI, even kept at a distance, would rob me of the joy I find in one of the things I love most.

It so devalues what I do and my basic capabilities as a human being that I kind of want to die. I'll stick around for my daughter, my partner, and any future children, but I'm not optimistic at all about the future.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#696

Let's just imagine we're critiquing cars or planes in about 1910. They're so flawed. No one can say with certainty whether or how they will improve. Side note of interest, from Wikipedia: "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly" is an editorial published in the New York Times on October 9, 1903. The article incorrectly predicted it would take one to ten million years for humanity to develop an operating flying machine.

Conversely, imagine we're someone talking about colonising the moon in 1969.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#697

I think this article is pretty spot on — it articulates something I’ve come to appreciate about LLM-assisted coding over the past few months. I started out very sceptical. When Claude Code landed, I got completely seduced — borderline addicted, slot machine-style — by what initially felt like a superpower. Then I actually read the code. It was shockingly bad. I swung back hard to my earlier scepticism, probably even…

I totally agree. The ”hard to control mech suit” is an excellent analogy.

When it works it’s brilliant.

There is a threshold point as part of the learning curve where you realize you are in a pile of spaghetti code and think it actually saves no time to use LLM assistant.

But then you learn to avoid the bad parts - thus they don’t take your time anymore - and the good parts start paying back in heaps of the time spent learning.

They are not zero effort tools.

There is a non-trivial learning cost involved.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#699
"If you’re making requests on a ChatGPT page and then pasting the resulting (broken) code into your editor, you’re not doing what the AI boosters are doing. No wonder you’re talking past each other."

This is in fact what I am doing (though I am not trying to convince anyone not to use LLMs). How can I get into this other mode? Any pointers? Do I need to pay up for a service? I do not want to carry out vibe coding, I want to use LLMs to solve physics, math and logic problems/puzzles. I'd appreciate any recommendations.

Re: My AI skeptic friends are all nuts

#700
>All progress on LLMs could halt today, and LLMs would remain the 2nd most important thing to happen over the course of my career.

During my time as a programmer (gaming + astrophysics), the following things have happened:

1. The rise of GPGPU programming, which has enabled 1000x increases in performance

2. A revolution in CPU architecture, from single core, to massively multicore

3. C++98 - C++26

4. Transformational increases in CPU memory

5. (In the graphics space): dedicated raytracing hardware, the fully general purpose GPU + OpenCL/CUDA, deferred rendering, FSR/DLSS

6. Mobile phones were invented

7. 64-bit

8. The internet went from being for MSN and facebook to what it is today

9. The rise of Valve/Steam and the incredible transformational existence of the indie games market, which enables individuals to self publish their code and products for virtually nothing

10. Clang was born, and GCC came back to life. MSVC became standards compliant, finally

11. Rust was invented, and is taking off. People actually take security seriously now (!)

12. Unified CPU/GPU memory spaces, GPU architectures becoming scalar etc

All of these have had vastly more impact on my programming than LLM's ever had. I've always a bit wondered who people are who find it transformational, because I can vaguely gesture at any part of my programming tooling and find that its vastly different to 10 years ago

>interact with Git, run existing tooling, like linters, formatters, and model checkers, and make essentially arbitrary tool calls (that you set up) through MCP.

I mean.. you can just do all these things anyway. Its literally more work for me to use an LLM to run a linter than to run a linter (its built into my IDE). So's git. And formatters as well. You can also make arbitrary tool calls.. through your ide/scripts/precommit/postcommit/etc. I have no idea why you'd even want an LLM to do this!

>People complain about LLM-generated code being “probabilistic”. No it isn’t

>The LLM might be stochastic

????????? That's literally the entire point. I want deterministic answers, like clang based autocomplete instead of the nightmare that is prob- i mean stochastic autocomplete

>If hallucination matters to you, your programming language has let you down.

They matter beacuse they waste your time with bullshit that you then have to fix. No programming language can truly enforce correct logic constraints which are one of the primary difficulties with writing code. I literally have no idea what the OP is even doing, actually writing code has always been a vastly minimal amount of time - the main bottleneck is the train of thought to make sure that everything's correct. The literal typing is an afterthought. No programming language can bypass that step, they can (at best) handhold you through certain kinds of problems

>Does an intern cost $20/month? Because that’s what Cursor.ai costs.

For the moment. They'll jack up the prices while enshittifying, and then good luck. I do not want to subscribe to a service to be able to code. I use free IDEs and free tools for exactly this reason. If you rely on a paid-for 3rd party you are doing it wrong and will regret it. This is one of the silliest things in the whole article

>But people select languages in part based on how well LLMs work with them, so Rust people should get on that

They really don't. People select languages based on:

1. What they're taught at school/university

2. What language meets their domain requirements

3. What language their job requires

>Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cut me a little slack as I ask you to shove this concern up your ass. No profession has demonstrated more contempt for intellectual property.

Are you joking. Is this article a troll? Programmers give a lot of a crap about copyright law. GPL/MIT/etc are hugely important, and people respect the ever loving crap about it in general - even most major companies won't just blatantly pirate GPL works

There's a tonne more in this article, but it smells like someone who has literally no idea what they're talking about talking out of their arse, and it shows profoundly

Post reply on HN