Not so long ago I read something on HN which resonated with me: we’re moving into the era that is comparable to car mechanics enthusiasts. You have a previous generation of cars where people just enjoy working on with hand tools, and there’s modern cars where people like to tune with software patches.
From the very start of llms I’ve had nothing but bad experiences with code that was generated for me. Either it’s buggy, it works but I end up losing an evening on some obscure bug, or it’s full of red flags.
My latest hobby project is just in a text editor with markup and that’s it. I’m also done with the augmented assistance in the IDE. I google things I forgot. I constantly read these amazing stories of people vibe-coding some firmware/driver that just works, and honestly I’m starting to question whether I’m reading the posts of some promotional bot.
> The second thing is that using LLMs in a useful way is a skill in itself.
I have to disagree here. People who are really into agentic coding like to say/believe this, but come on, it's not rocket science! You literally ask the agent to do something and it does it, that's it. As long as you use a recent model it will do it really well regardless of how fancy your prompt is. There's no moat here, anyone can do it. Your job will be gone and so will mine.
It's not hard to use a drill or a hammer but learning how to use them as tools to make things was always the real challenge. Using LLMs in a useful way I would argue is a much more important skill than programming as was learning how to make programming useful was always the more important skill, but it depends on if you view programming as a means to an end or the end in and of itself.
Using LLMs in a useful way I would argue is a much more important skill than programming as was
The trouble with this argument is that fundamentally this whole field has no sound theoretical foundation. It has no deterministic rules you can learn that will reliably get good results.
That also means there is no way to prove that what works well today will continue to work well tomorrow. Nor can you be sure that something you've tried and ruled out in the past because it didn't get satisfactory results won't be the new SOP next week. Any experience you gain in the field might be obsolete within hours.
An important consequence of this is that you can't train someone else to use LLM-based tools effectively either. At best you can train them to use specific tools and models that exist today effectively and hope the knowledge remains useful for a significant period of time. Even that assumes you have the knowledge yourself and aren't relying on something that worked well yesterday but could already be out of date after something new was released last night.
This looks like a fundamental problem that can never be fully solved as long as LLMs of the type that are popular today are behind the tools. People forget in all the hype and rapid change that the whole idea of agentic AI tools in mainstream development is barely a year old. We have no idea yet what the long-term consequences of so many people and organisations in the industry all but abandoning traditional programming skills in favour of AI agents will be. There already seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence about programming skills atrophying, developers burning out, and the quality of the finished product dropping but it's probably too soon to have serious data to analyse or to draw any big conclusions about what is a good way forward from here.
Then on the other hand you have people who have doubled or tripled their real-world business by using these tools… And the folks who have developed apps that benefit their child’s development, etc.
You don’t have to look too far to see where we are going. But you do need to have your eyes open.
You don’t have to look too far to see where we are going. But you do need to have your eyes open.
As I said - we have no idea yet what the long-term consequences of the recent rapid shift towards AI and agents will be. I prefer to make decisions based on evidence, not hearsay or wishful thinking.
I have been around long enough to see a lot of hype cycles in programming. They were all going to be revolutionary. They were all going to change the nature of programming forever. They were all going to result in dramatic increases to productivity (or other similar claims).
Many of those phases did turn out to have some good - sometimes excellent - ideas. A lot of those have since been widely adopted in the industry. They also had plenty of ideas that didn't really work out. In the end we have improved some areas to a useful degree but none of those phases resulted in orders of magnitude increases in useful productivity or quality.
So far LLMs and agents are looking like a familiar story. They're proving to be useful tools for some types of work. They're now quite good at producing code to the standard of an average developer doing a well understood task - and in many cases that is all you need! But the jury is still out on whether they'll ever be able to replace good programmers or build genuinely innovative products where there aren't lots of examples of good existing implementations to train the models. Those are the parts of the industry where I do most of my own work and I hear much more scepticism about these tools from those developers than in the average online discussion.
chicken-stew · · focus · HN ↗
From the very start of llms I’ve had nothing but bad experiences with code that was generated for me. Either it’s buggy, it works but I end up losing an evening on some obscure bug, or it’s full of red flags.
My latest hobby project is just in a text editor with markup and that’s it. I’m also done with the augmented assistance in the IDE. I google things I forgot. I constantly read these amazing stories of people vibe-coding some firmware/driver that just works, and honestly I’m starting to question whether I’m reading the posts of some promotional bot.
xgb84j · · focus · HN ↗
The second thing is that using LLMs in a useful way is a skill in itself.
i_love_retros · · focus · HN ↗
I have to disagree here. People who are really into agentic coding like to say/believe this, but come on, it's not rocket science! You literally ask the agent to do something and it does it, that's it. As long as you use a recent model it will do it really well regardless of how fancy your prompt is. There's no moat here, anyone can do it. Your job will be gone and so will mine.
kingcauchy · · focus · HN ↗
Silhouette · · focus · HN ↗
The trouble with this argument is that fundamentally this whole field has no sound theoretical foundation. It has no deterministic rules you can learn that will reliably get good results.
That also means there is no way to prove that what works well today will continue to work well tomorrow. Nor can you be sure that something you've tried and ruled out in the past because it didn't get satisfactory results won't be the new SOP next week. Any experience you gain in the field might be obsolete within hours.
An important consequence of this is that you can't train someone else to use LLM-based tools effectively either. At best you can train them to use specific tools and models that exist today effectively and hope the knowledge remains useful for a significant period of time. Even that assumes you have the knowledge yourself and aren't relying on something that worked well yesterday but could already be out of date after something new was released last night.
This looks like a fundamental problem that can never be fully solved as long as LLMs of the type that are popular today are behind the tools. People forget in all the hype and rapid change that the whole idea of agentic AI tools in mainstream development is barely a year old. We have no idea yet what the long-term consequences of so many people and organisations in the industry all but abandoning traditional programming skills in favour of AI agents will be. There already seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence about programming skills atrophying, developers burning out, and the quality of the finished product dropping but it's probably too soon to have serious data to analyse or to draw any big conclusions about what is a good way forward from here.
jbs789 · · focus · HN ↗
You don’t have to look too far to see where we are going. But you do need to have your eyes open.
Silhouette · · focus · HN ↗
As I said - we have no idea yet what the long-term consequences of the recent rapid shift towards AI and agents will be. I prefer to make decisions based on evidence, not hearsay or wishful thinking.
I have been around long enough to see a lot of hype cycles in programming. They were all going to be revolutionary. They were all going to change the nature of programming forever. They were all going to result in dramatic increases to productivity (or other similar claims).
Many of those phases did turn out to have some good - sometimes excellent - ideas. A lot of those have since been widely adopted in the industry. They also had plenty of ideas that didn't really work out. In the end we have improved some areas to a useful degree but none of those phases resulted in orders of magnitude increases in useful productivity or quality.
So far LLMs and agents are looking like a familiar story. They're proving to be useful tools for some types of work. They're now quite good at producing code to the standard of an average developer doing a well understood task - and in many cases that is all you need! But the jury is still out on whether they'll ever be able to replace good programmers or build genuinely innovative products where there aren't lots of examples of good existing implementations to train the models. Those are the parts of the industry where I do most of my own work and I hear much more scepticism about these tools from those developers than in the average online discussion.