upvote
I'll push it back against this a little bit. I find any type of deliberative thinking to be a forcing function. I've recently been experimenting with writing very detailed specifications and prompts for an LLM to process. I find that as I go through the details, thoughts will occur to me. Things I hadn't thought about in the design will come to me. This is very much the same phenomenon when I was writing the code by hand. I don't think this is a binary either or. There are many ways to have a forcing function.
reply
I think it's analogous to writing and refining an outline for a paper. If you keep going, you eventually end up at an outline where you can concatenate what are basically sentences together to form paragraphs. This is sort of where you are now, if you spec well you'll get decent results.
reply
I agree, I felt this a bit. The LLM can be a modeling peer in a way. But the phase where it goes to validate / implement is also key to my brain. I need to feel the details.
reply
> I see people at work who are drooling about being able to have code made for them .. but I'm not in that group.

people seem to have a inability to predict second and third order effects

the first order effect is "I can sip a latte while the bot does my job for me"... well, great I suppose, while it lasts

but the second order effect is: unless you're in the top 10%, you will now lose your job, permanently

and the third order effect is the economy collapses as it is built on consumer spending

reply
Alternatively, another second order effect is can't sip latte anymore because you're orchestrating 8 bots do the work and you're back to 80%-100% time saturation.
reply
I wonder over the long term how programmers are going to maintain the proficiency to read and edit the code that the LLM produces.
reply
Personally I planned to allocate weekly challenges to stay sharp.
reply
Everything you have said here is completely true, except for "not in that group": the cost-benefit analysis clearly favors letting these tools rip, even despite the drawbacks.
reply
Maybe.

But it's also likely that these tools will produce mountains of unmaintainable code and people will get buried by the technical debt. It kind of strikes me as similar to the hubris of calling the Titanic "unsinkable." It's an untested claim with potentially disastrous consequences.

reply
> But it's also likely that these tools will produce mountains of unmaintainable code and people will get buried by the technical debt.

It's not just likely, but it's guaranteed to happen if you're not keeping an eye on it. So much so, that it's really reinforced my existing prejudice towards typed and compiled languages to reduce some of the checking you need to do.

Using an agent with a dynamic language feels very YOLO to me. I guess you can somewhat compensate with reams of tests though. (which begs the question, is the dynamic language still saving you time?)

reply
Companies aren't evaluating on "keeping an eye on technical debt", but then ARE directly evaluating on whether you use AI tools.

Meanwhile they are hollowing out work forces based on those metrics.

If we make doing the right thing career limiting this all gets rather messy rather quickly.

reply
Tests make me faster. Dynamic or not feels irrelevant when I consider how much slower I’d be without the fast feedback loop of tests.
reply
Static type checking is even faster than running the code. It doesn't catch everything, but if finding a type error in a fast test is good, then finding it before running any tests seems like it would be even better.
reply
Oh I'm well aware of this. I admitted defeat in a way.. I can't compete. I'm just at loss, and unless LLM stall and break for some reason (ai bubble, enshittification..) I don't see a future for me in "software" in a few years.
reply
Somehow I appreciate this type of attitude more than the one which reflects total denial of the current trajectory. Fervent denial and AI trash-talking being maybe the single most dominant sentiment on HN over the last year, by all means interspersed with a fair amount of amazement at our new toys.

But it is sad if good programmers should loose sight of the opportunities the future will bring (future as in the next few decades). If anything, software expertise is likely to be one of the most sought-after skills - only a slightly different kind of skill than churning out LOCs on a keyboard faster than the next person: People who can harness the LLMs, design prompts at the right abstraction level, verify the code produced, understand when someone has injected malware, etc. These skills will be extremely valuable in the short to medium term AFAICS.

But ultimately we will obviously become obsolete if nothing (really) catastrophic happens, but when that happens then likely all human labor will be obsolete too, and society will need to be organized differently than exchanging labor for money for means of sustenance.

reply
I get crazy over the 'engineer are not paid to write loc', nobody is sad because they don't have to type anymore. My two issues are it levels the delivery game, for the average web app, anybody can now output something acceptable, and then it doesn't help me conceptualize solution better, so I revert to letting it produce stuff that is not maleable enough.
reply
I wonder about who "anybody can now output something acceptable" will hit most - engineers or software entrepreneurs.

Any implementation moat around rapid prototyping, and any fundraising moat around hiring a team of 10 to knock out your first few versions, seems gone now. Trying to sell MVP-tier software is real hard when a bunch of your potential customers will just think "thanks for the idea, I'll just make my own."

The crunch for engineers, on the other hand, seems like that even if engineers are needed to "orchestrate the agents" and manage everything, there could be a feature-velocity barrier for the software that you can still sell (either internally or externally). Changing stuff more rapidly can quickly hit a point of limited ROI if users can't adjust, or are slowed by constant tooling/workflow churn. So at some point (for the first time in many engineers' career, probably) you'll probably see product say "ok even though we built everything we want to test, we can't roll it all out at once!". But maybe what is learned from starting to roll those things out will necessitate more changes continually that will need some level of staffing still. Or maybe cheaper code just means ever-more-specialized workflows instead of pushing users to one-size-fits-all tooling.

In both of those cases the biggest challenge seems to be "how do you keep it from toppling down over time" which has been the biggest unsolved problem in consumer software development for decades. There's a prominent crowd right now saying "the agents will just manage it by continuing to hack on everything new until all the old stuff is stable too" but I'm not sure that's entirely realistic. Maybe the valuable engineering skills will be putting in the right guardrails to make sure that behavioral verification of the code is a tractable problem. Or maybe the agents will do that too. But right now, like you say, I haven't found particularly good results in conceptualizing better solutions from the current tools.

reply
If the world comes to that it will be absolutely catastrophic, and it’s a failure of grappling with the implications that many of the executives of AI companies think you can paper over the social upheaval with some UBI. There will be no controlling what happens, and you don’t even need to believe in some malicious autonomous AI to see that.
reply
Yep, its a rather depressing realization isnt it. Oh well, life moves on i suppose.

I think we realistically have a few years of runway left though. Adoption is always slow outside of the far right of the bell curve.

reply
i'm sorry if I pulled everybody down .. but it's been many months since gemini and claude became solid tools, and regularly i have this strong gut feeling. i tried reevaluating my perception of my work, goals, value .. but i keep going back to nope.
reply
I feel the same.

Frankly, I am not sure there is a place in the world at all for me in ten years.

I think the future might just be a big enough garden to keep me fed while I wait for lack of healthcare access to put me out of my misery.

I am glad I am not younger.

reply