Thread

1. RamblingCTO · 1790594530 · focus · HN ↗

   I really don't get this discussion at all. Ignoring human comprehension etc., every code review of agentically created code shows bad tests (lots of overfitting, testing on specific implementation details, not general behaviour/business logic), weird and repetitive abstractions, duplications of code, circumventing architecture etc. etc. It's a complete mess. Unmaintainable, bad craft, bug-prone and corrosive. That's what you want to catch. You're piling on tech debt like hell and you're gonna pay for it down the line. Look at the fucking code and then come back to argue. Jesus. I don't even understand how this is a debate. Look at the code.

   1. ParanoidShroom · 1790594851 · focus · HN ↗

      Management wants to go vroom vroom. Gambles that new models will be good enough to fix tech debt.

      I do agree with you

      1. RamblingCTO · 1790599300 · focus · HN ↗

         It's also a gamble that you don't have to look at the underlying layers because it's "the new abstraction layer". Which is intellectually incredibly lazy.

         They talk about astractions as if "requirements -> code" is the same as "Go -> ASM -> bytecode". Which is just utterly stupid. But downvotes tell me a different story haha.

         I'm also management btw, and the two startups I am a CTO at all have clear buy-in from other C-levels that we can't just spam AI slop w/o reading it and hope for the best. But I do see that most probably don't see it.

         1. ParanoidShroom · 1790608462 · focus · HN ↗

            Unfortunately here, one big team shipped a product that looks to be a big hit from early Analytics. So they expect every other team with other seniority to achieve same results.

            Wonder how it will age.

            I'm a bit shocked they don't care much about the strangle contract this introduces by being so dependant on external models.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.