Thread

The problem is not AI code, but not knowing about system architecture or intent

388 points · 240 comments · zazuke

bengold14 · 1790612793 · focus · HN ↗
I see this everyday. The problem is code is the wrong abstraction for the work we do. LLMs have solved coding, but they haven't solved systems, collaboration or system maintenance.
Edit: Since I seem to have touched a nerve - I've been working on a project to solve this: <a href="https://www.archme.io" rel="nofollow">https://www.archme.io if you want to know my thoughts on the right abstraction
1. verdverm · 1790613137 · focus · HN ↗
  When you say "solved coding," what does this mean, what does it look like?
  I have strong disagreement because it sounds like, by analogy or proxy, we have also "solved writing"
  1. gslepak · 1790613458 · focus · HN ↗
    It means "for my requirements they're good enough."
    They haven't solved coding.
    Programming is an art form. And the better you get at it, the better kinds of ideas (abstractions) you can create.
    This is something today's AI cannot do.
    If everyone were to permanently switch to AI for software development, software innovation would cease.
    verdverm · 1790613627 · focus · HN ↗
    even setting aside the artistic side of the profession, I see these things make all sorts of basic mistakes, so even the mechanical part doesn't seem "solved" ime

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.