undefined

points

[-]

I think we really need to have a serious think of what is "good quality" in the age of coding agents. A lot of the effort we put into maintaining quality has to do with maintainability, readability etc. But is it relevant if the code isn't for humans? What is good for a human is not what is good for an AI necessarily (not to say there is no overlap). I think there are clearly measurable things we can agree still apply around bugs, security etc, but I think there are also going to be some things we need to just let go of.

by skydhash3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You can’t drop anything as long as a programmer is expected to edit the source code directly. Good luck investigating a bug when the code is unclear semantically, or updating a piece correctly when you’re not really sure it’s the only instance.

by tjr3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think that's the question. Is a programmer expected to ever touch the source code? Or will AI -- and AI alone -- update the code that it generated?

Not entirely unlike other code generation mechanisms, such as tools for generating HTML based on a graphical design. A human could edit that, but it may not have been the intent. The intent was that, if you want a change, go back to the GUI editor and regenerate the HTML.

by bornfreddy2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

So like we went from assembler to higher level programming languages, we will now move to specifications for LLMs? Interesting thought... Maybe, once the "compilers" get good enough, but for mission critical systems they are not nearly good enough yet.

by Wobbles4226 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

This is exactly what is happening from a levels of abstraction standpoint.

The difference being that compilers and related tools are deterministic, and we can manage the outputs using mathematical proof of correctness.

The LLM's driving this new abstraction layer are another beast entirely.

by tjr2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Right. I work in aerospace software, and I do not know if this option would ever be on the table. It certainly isn't now.

So I think this question needs to be asked in the context of particular projects, not as an industry-wide yes or no answer. Does your particular project still need humans involved at the code level? Even just for review? If so, then you probably ought to retain human-oriented software design and coding techniques. If not, then, whatever. Doesn't matter. Aim for whatever efficiency metric you like.

by 9dev1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Then again, would anyone have guessed we’d even be seriously discussing this topic 10, 20, 40 years ago?

by tjr1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Maybe. This book from 1990

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262526401/artificial-intelligen...

envisions a future of AI assistance that looks not too far off from today.

by 9dev23 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

It’s also pretty close to Steve Jobs initial vision of computing in the future (https://stevejobsarchive.com/stories/objects-of-our-life, 1983) but my point is that whatever it is we call AI now became reality so much faster than anyone really saw coming. Even if the pace slows down, and it didn’t yet, things are improving so massively all the time that the world can’t keep up changing to accommodate.

by palmotea3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> I think you have every right to doubt those telling us that they run 5 agents to generate a new SAAS-product while they are sipping latté in a bar. To work like that I believe you'll have to let go of really digging into the code, which in my experience is needed if want good quality.

Also we live in a capitalist society. The boss will soon ask: "Why the fuck am I paying you to sip a latte in a bar? While am machine does your work? Use all your time to make money for me, or you're fired."

AI just means more output will be expected of you, and they'll keep pushing you to work as hard as you can.

by 9dev1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> AI just means more output will be expected of you, and they'll keep pushing you to work as hard as you can.

That’s a bit too cynical for me. After all, yes, your boss is not paying you for sipping lattes, but for producing value for the company. If there is a tool that maximises your output, why wouldn’t he want you to use that to great efficiency?

Put differently, would a carpenter shop accept employees rejecting the power saw in favour of a hand saw to retain their artisanal capability?

by recursive28 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

If the power saw ran itself without any oversight, the carpenter shop wouldn't accept any type of employees.

by 9dev7 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

But that’s the exact opposite of what the GP was arguing; you will be expected to stick with the agent more, not less.