‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The Four Horsemen of Agentic Coding

114 points · 89 comments · haute_cuisine

  1. JV00 · · focus · HN ↗
    Disagree on the slop point. By now the code of frontier models works well, and the need to read it is gone. The Claude word salad problem was pretty much solved with the 5.5 opus release.

    The other 3 points made in article make sense though.

    1. thethirdone · · focus · HN ↗
      If you don't need to read the code at all, what are the engineers doing to make the other issues matter? Deskilling and alienation are still about the relationship between engineers and the code.
      1. ramoz · · focus · HN ↗
        You still have to orchestrate these things and the wholistic system architectures, pull the slot machine handle many times to get the right thing, and review/verify the working output constantly.

        That said, I think we need to be prepared for how a simple prompt like "make it faster" will work in a relatively short timeframe - and where the AI is able to adequately refactor/re-platform/be done in a way where even the architecture becomes obscure to us.

        1. SpicyLemonZest · · focus · HN ↗
          I often use simple prompts like “make it faster” and get back functionally correct commits. When I review them, I often discover that they didn’t do what I really wanted - sometimes Claude made it faster by incurring expensive costs, or doing a migration that would be risky in prod, or making a tradeoff that’s not worth it.

          Perhaps I could set up a workflow to handle this without reading the code. I’ve seen people who make Claude fill out arcane templates, and then spend their time reviewing reports and tinkering with loops or whatever. But why would I want to read a TPS report about the code rather than just reading the code?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.