What I've found is that AI allows lazy and incompetent developers to be more lazy and more incompetent. This then has the effect that product quality suffers more, faster. As a result of the sheer amount of code now being pushed out, code reviews, a thing that previously somewhat prevented lazy and incompetent developers from pushing out horrible code, is effectively dead in the water since no human can actually review such amounts of code realistically anymore. Some companies have adopted AI to review code, which, well ... you have AI make code, AI review code ... I hope you can see the stupidity here if you expect to see any deterministic results at all.
I guess time will tell if the consumer will adapt to the lower quality of products, allowing companies to justify the existence of lazy and incompetent developers, or if the consumer will push back, forcing companies to increase the quality of their developers.
Note: I use AI every day and it is entirely possible to create high quality software with it, so long as you are not lazy and incompetent.
I mean these guys are not even pretending to be reviewing the code.
It just gets “reviewed” by an LLM, which will find a nitpick while ignoring the huge fire in the core of the design, force the planner to make even more sloppy code to cover for an irrelevant test case. Rinse old tokens and repeat until you hit limits.
For example, I recently got brought in to help with quality on a large-scale system that had been ported to a new platform with the help of coding agents. The project was completed and declared operational in record time, but soon after the business discovered that:
1. The promised scalability improvements did not materialize. Instead, it got worse.
2. Observability had been lost. The telemetry was no longer trustworthy.
3. Users stopped trusting it because it was producing incorrect outputs.
What I ended up discovering was that, while it scrupulously kept existing automated tests passing, any behavior that wasn't explicitly covered by a test was free to change any which way. And there were plenty of small things that weren't explicitly covered. Perhaps because the original authors thought they were so obvious and commonsense that they didn't need one, perhaps because mistakes happen. The why doesn't matter. The point is that reality is messy and imperfect, so giving someone a chance to look at things and think, "Huh, that's funny..." is an essential part of defense in depth.
The real worst part was, this whole replatforming was a huge waste of time, anyway. The improvements they were looking for could easily have been accomplished with some controlled incremental changes to the original system. Mostly just removing a few basic and well-known performance antipatterns.
But way back at the outset, the person in charge of the project asked their agent, "What's the best way to X," and the agent gave them a trendslop answer about how Y alternative technology is more scalable and we should just port to that. It was convincing and they were under intense time pressure to just ship some code because leadership is bought into the AI hype and now has the patience of a 4 year old, so they just went with it.
askonomm · · focus · HN ↗
I guess time will tell if the consumer will adapt to the lower quality of products, allowing companies to justify the existence of lazy and incompetent developers, or if the consumer will push back, forcing companies to increase the quality of their developers.
Note: I use AI every day and it is entirely possible to create high quality software with it, so long as you are not lazy and incompetent.
whatever1 · · focus · HN ↗
rfgplk · · focus · HN ↗
whatever1 · · focus · HN ↗
It just gets “reviewed” by an LLM, which will find a nitpick while ignoring the huge fire in the core of the design, force the planner to make even more sloppy code to cover for an irrelevant test case. Rinse old tokens and repeat until you hit limits.
bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
For example, I recently got brought in to help with quality on a large-scale system that had been ported to a new platform with the help of coding agents. The project was completed and declared operational in record time, but soon after the business discovered that:
1. The promised scalability improvements did not materialize. Instead, it got worse.
2. Observability had been lost. The telemetry was no longer trustworthy.
3. Users stopped trusting it because it was producing incorrect outputs.
What I ended up discovering was that, while it scrupulously kept existing automated tests passing, any behavior that wasn't explicitly covered by a test was free to change any which way. And there were plenty of small things that weren't explicitly covered. Perhaps because the original authors thought they were so obvious and commonsense that they didn't need one, perhaps because mistakes happen. The why doesn't matter. The point is that reality is messy and imperfect, so giving someone a chance to look at things and think, "Huh, that's funny..." is an essential part of defense in depth.
The real worst part was, this whole replatforming was a huge waste of time, anyway. The improvements they were looking for could easily have been accomplished with some controlled incremental changes to the original system. Mostly just removing a few basic and well-known performance antipatterns.
But way back at the outset, the person in charge of the project asked their agent, "What's the best way to X," and the agent gave them a trendslop answer about how Y alternative technology is more scalable and we should just port to that. It was convincing and they were under intense time pressure to just ship some code because leadership is bought into the AI hype and now has the patience of a 4 year old, so they just went with it.
CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗