Even when I'm stuck in hell, fighting the latest undocumented change in some obscure library or other grey-bearded creation, the LLM, although not always right, is there for me to talk to, when before I'd often have no one. It doesn't judge or sneer at you, or tell you to "RTFM". It's better than any human help, even if its not always right because its at least always more reliable and you don't have to bother some grey beard who probably hates you anyway.
Sadly, I find it sorely lacking at dealing with build systems and that particular type of boilerplate, mostly because it seems to mix up different versions of things too much and gives you totally broken setups more often than not. I’d just as soon never deal with the he’ll that is front end build/lint/test config again.
Solving problems for real people. Isn't the answer here kind of obvious?
Our field has a whole ethos of open-source side projects people do for love and enjoyment. In the same way that you might spend your weekends in a basement woodworking shop without furnishing your entire house by hand, I think the craft of programming will be just fine.
Look at the majority of the tech sector for the last ten years or so and tell me this answer again.
Like I guess this is kind of true, if "problems for real people" equals "compensating for inefficiencies in our system for people with money" and "solutions" equals "making a poor person do it for them and paying them as little as legally possible."
Depends what you write. What I work on isn't about eliminating jobs at all, if anything it creates them. And like, actual, good jobs that people would want, not, again, paying someone below the poverty line $5 to deliver an overpriced burrito across town.
Would you mind naming a few instance of the workers coming out ahead?
I doubt the displaced computers managed to find a better job on average. Probably even their kids were disadvantaged since the parents had fewer options to support their education.
So, who knows if this specific group of people and their descendants ever fully recovered let alone got ahead.
Not always. Recruitment budgets have limits, so it's a fixed number of employees either providing services to a larger number of customers thanks to software, or serving fewer customers or do so less often without the software.
Haven't we been automating jobs away since the industrial revolution? I know AI may be an exception to this trend, but at least with classical programming, demand goes up, GDP per capita goes up, and new industries are born.
I mean, there's three ways to get stuff done: do it yourself, get someone else to do it, or get a machine to do it.
#2 doesn't scale, since someone still has to do it. If we want every person to not be required to do it (washing, growing food, etc), #3 is the only way forward. Automation and specialization have made the unthinkable possible for an average person. We've a long way to go, but I don't see automation as a fundamentally bad thing, as long as there's a simultaneous effort to help (especially those who are poor) transition to a new form of working.
Somehow everyone who says this misses that never in the history of the United States (and most other countries tbh) has this been true.
We just consign people to the streets in industrial quantity. More underserved to act as the lubricant for capitalism.
I see capitalism invoked as a "boogey man" a lot, which fair enough, you can make an emotional argument, but it's not specific enough to actually be helpful in coming up with a solution to help these people.
In fact, capitalism has been the exact thing that has lifted so many out of poverty. Things can be simultaneously bad and also have gotten better over time.
I would argue that the biggest issue is education, but that's another tangent...
I'll be sure to alert the next person I encounter working UberEats for slave wages that the resources exist that they cannot use. I'm sure this difference will impact their lives greatly.
Edit: My point isn't that UberEats drivers make slave wages (though they do): My point is that from the POV of said people and others who need the aforementioned resources, whether they don't exist or exist and are unusable is fucking irrelevant.
[1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015022383221&se...
[2] https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Uber/salaries/Driver (select United States as location)
I've worked in a medical space writing software so that people can automate away the job that their bodies used to do before they broke.
(Interesting how people talk about AI destroying programming jobs all the time, but rarely mention the impact of billions of dollars of code being given away.)
1. AI Coding leads to a lack of flow.
2. A lack of flow leads to a lack of joy.
Personally, I can't find myself agreeing with the first argument. Flow happens for me when I use AI. It wouldn't surprise me if this differed developer to developer. Or maybe it is the size of requests I'm making, as mine tend to be on the smaller size where I already have an idea of what I want to write but think the AI can spit it out faster. I also don't really view myself as prompt engineering; instead it feels more like a natural back and forth with the AI to refine the output I'm looking for. There are times it gets stubborn and resistant to change but that is generally a sign that I might want to reconsider using AI for that particular task.
Managers usually can't carve out a full day - but a couple of hours is manageable.
See also this quote from Gergely Orosz:
Despite being rusty with coding (I don't code every day
these days): since starting to use Windsurf / Cursor with
the recent increasingly capable models: I am SO back to
being as fast in coding as when I was coding every day
"in the zone" [...]
When you are driving with a firm grip on the steering
wheel - because you know exactly where you are going, and
when to steer hard or gently - it is just SUCH a big
boost.
I have a bunch of side projects and APIs that I operate -
but usually don't like to touch it because it's (my)
legacy code.
Not any more.
I'm making large changes, quickly. These tools really
feel like a massive multiplier for experienced devs -
those of us who have it in our head exactly what we want
to do and now the LLM tooling can move nearly as fast as
my thoughts!
It's been amazing to spin up quick React prototypes during a lunch break of concepts and ideas for quick feedback and reactions.
You still need to do that if you're using AI, otherwise how do you know if it's actually done a good job? Or are people really just vibe coding without even reading the code at all? That seems... unlikely to work.
Gone are those days.
Most of AI-generated programming content I use are comments/explanations for legacy code, closely followed by tailored "getting started" scripts and iterations on visualisation tasks (for shitty school assignments that want my pyplots to look nice). The rest requires an understanding, which AI can help you achieve faster (it's read many a book related to the topic, so it can recall information a lot like an experienced colleague may), but it can't confer capital K Knowledge or understanding upon you. Some of the tasks it performs are grueling, take a lot of time to do manually, and provide little mental stimulation. Some may be described as lobotomizing and (in my opinion) may mentally damage you in the "Jack Torrance typewriter" kinda way.
It makes me able to work on the fun parts of my job which possess the qualities the article applauds.
Let's stop pretending or denying it: most of us would delegate our work code to somebody else or something else if we could.
Still, prompting LLMs well requires eloquence and expressiveness that many programmers don't have. I have started deriving a lot of value from those LLMs I chose to interact with by specifying clear boundaries on what's the priority and what can wait for later and what should be completely ignored due to this or that objective (and a number of other parameters I am giving them). When you do that well, they are extremely useful.
100% this.
It requires magical incantations that may or may not work and where a missing comma in a prompt can break the output just as badly as the US waking up and draining compute resources.
Has nothing to do with eloquence
I don’t think this is the case, if anything the opposite is true. Most of us would like to do the work code but have realized, at some career point, that you’re paid more to abstract yourself away from that and get others to do it either in technical leadership or management.
I'll be a radical and say that I think it depends and is very subjective.
Author above you seems to enjoy working on code by itself. You seem to have a different motivation. My motivation is solving problems I encounter, code just happen to be one way out of many possible ones. The author of the submission article seems to love the craft of programming in itself, maybe the problem itself doesn't even matter. Some people program just for the money, and so on.
Honestly you’re trying to prove AI is ineffective by telling us it didn’t work with your ineffective protocol. That is not a strong argument.
Either way, when a model starts making dumb mistakes like that these days I start a fresh conversation (to blow away all of the bad tokens in the current one), either with that model or another one.
I often switch from Claude 3.7 Sonnet to o3 or o4-mini these days. I paste in the most recent "good" version of the thing we're working on and prompt from there.
2. Some of the modern LLMs generate very impressive code. Variables caching values that are reused several times, utility functions, even closure helpers scoped to a single function. I agree that when the LLM code's quality falls bellow a certain threshold then it's better in every way to just write it yourself instead.
This isn't how it works, psychologically. The whole time I'm manual coding, I'm wondering if it'd be "easier" to start prompting. I keep thinking about a passage from The Road To Wigan Pier where Orwell addresses this effect as it related to the industrial revolution:
>Mechanize the world as fully as it might be mechanized, and whichever way you turn there will be some machine cutting you off from the chance of working—that is, of living.
>At a first glance this might not seem to matter. Why should you not get on with your ‘creative work’ and disregard the machines that would do it for you? But it is not so simple as it sounds. Here am I, working eight hours a day in an insurance office; in my spare time I want to do something ‘creative’, so I choose to do a bit of carpentering—to make myself a table, for instance. Notice that from the very start there is a touch of artificiality about the whole business, for the factories can turn me out a far better table than I can make for myself. But even when I get to work on my table, it is not possible for me to feel towards it as the cabinet-maker of a hundred years ago felt towards his table, still less as Robinson Crusoe felt towards his. For before I start, most of the work has already been done for me by machinery. The tools I use demand the minimum of skill. I can get, for instance, planes which will cut out any moulding; the cabinet-maker of a hundred years ago would have had to do the work with chisel and gouge, which demanded real skill of eye and hand. The boards I buy are ready planed and the legs are ready turned by the lathe. I can even go to the wood-shop and buy all the parts of the table ready-made and only needing to be fitted together; my work being reduced to driving in a few pegs and using a piece of sandpaper. And if this is so at present, in the mechanized future it will be enormously more so. With the tools and materials available then, there will be no possibility of mistake, hence no room for skill. Making a table will be easier and duller than peeling a potato. In such circumstances it is nonsense to talk of ‘creative work’. In any case the arts of the hand (which have got to be transmitted by apprenticeship) would long since have disappeared. Some of them have disappeared already, under the competition of the machine. Look round any country churchyard and see whether you can find a decently-cut tombstone later than 1820. The art, or rather the craft, of stonework has died out so completely that it would take centuries to revive it.
>But it may be said, why not retain the machine and retain ‘creative work’? Why not cultivate anachronisms as a spare-time hobby? Many people have played with this idea; it seems to solve with such beautiful ease the problems set by the machine. The citizen of Utopia, we are told, coming home from his daily two hours of turning a handle in the tomato-canning factory, will deliberately revert to a more primitive way of life and solace his creative instincts with a bit of fretwork, pottery-glazing, or handloom-weaving. And why is this picture an absurdity—as it is, of course? Because of a principle that is not always recognized, though always acted upon: that so long as the machine is there, one is under an obligation to use it. No one draws water from the well when he can turn on the tap. One sees a good illustration of this in the matter of travel. Everyone who has travelled by primitive methods in an undeveloped country knows that the difference between that kind of travel and modern travel in trains, cars, etc., is the difference between life and death. The nomad who walks or rides, with his baggage stowed on a camel or an ox-cart, may suffer every kind of discomfort, but at least he is living while he is travelling; whereas for the passenger in an express train or a luxury liner his journey is an interregnum, a kind of temporary death. And yet so long as the railways exist, one has got to travel by train—or by car or aeroplane. Here am I, forty miles from London. When I want to go up to London why do I not pack my luggage on to a mule and set out on foot, making a two days of it? Because, with the Green Line buses whizzing past me every ten minutes, such a journey would be intolerably irksome. In order that one may enjoy primitive methods of travel, it is necessary that no other method should be available. No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary. Hence the absurdity of that picture of Utopians saving their souls with fretwork. In a world where everything could be done by machinery, everything would be done by machinery. Deliberately to revert to primitive methods to use archaic took, to put silly little difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements. Revert to handwork in a machine age, and you are back in Ye Olde Tea Shoppe or the Tudor villa with the sham beams tacked to the wall.
>The tendency of mechanical progress, then, is to frustrate the human need for effort and creation. It makes unnecessary and even impossible the activities of the eye and the hand. The apostle of ‘progress’ will sometimes declare that this does not matter, but you can usually drive him into a comer by pointing out the horrible lengths to which the process can be carried.
sorry it's so long
Not me. I code because I love to code, and I get paid to do what I love. If that's not you…find a different profession?
As a developer I'm bullish on coding agents and GenAI tools, because they can save you time and can augment your abilities. I've experienced it, and I've seen it enough already. I love them, and want to see them continue to be used.
I'm bearish on the idea that "vibe coding" can produce much of value, and people without any engineering background becoming wildly productive at building great software. I know I'm not alone. If you're a good problem solver who doesn't know how to code, this is your gateway. And you better learn what's happening with the code while you can to avoid creating a huge mess later on.
Developers argue about the quality of "vibe coded" stuff. There are good arguments on both sides. At some point I think we all agree that AI will be able generate high quality software faster than a human, someday. But today is not that day. Many will try to convince you that it is.
Within a few years we'll see massive problems from AI generated code, and it's for one simple reason:
Managers and other Bureaucrats do not care about the quality of the software.
Read it again if you have to. It's an uncomfortable idea, but it's true. They don't care about your flow. They don't care about how much you love to build quality things. They don't care if software is good or bad they care about closing tickets and creating features. Most of them don't care, and have never cared about the "craft".
If you're a master mason crafting amazing brickwork, you're exactly the same as some amateur grabbing some bricks from home depot and slapping a wall together. A wall is a wall. That's how the majority of managers view software development today. By the time that shoddy wall crumbles they'll be at another company anyway so it's someone else's problem.
When I talk about the software industry collapsing now, and in a few years we're mired with garbage software everywhere, this is why. These people in "leadership" are salivating at the idea of finally getting something for nothing. Paying a few interns to "vibe code" piles of software while they high five each other and laugh.
It will crash. The bubble will pop.
Developers: Keep your skills sharp and weather out the storm. In a few years you'll be in high demand once again. When those walls crumble, they will need people who what they're doing to repair it. Ask for fair compensation to do so.
Even if I'm wrong about all of this I'm keeping my skills sharp. You should too.
This isn't meant to be anti-management, but it's based on what I've seen. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
* And to the original point, In my experience the tools interrupt the "flow" but don't necessarily take the joy out of it. I cannot do suggestion/autocomplete because it breaks my flow. I love having a chat window with AI nearby when I get stuck or want to generate some boilerplate.
IDK, there's still a place in society for master masons to work on 100+ year old buildings built by other master masons.
Same with the robots. They can implement solutions but I'm not sure I've heard of any inventing an algorithmic solution to a problem.
The funny thing is I agree with other comments, it is just kind of like a really good stack overflow. It can’t automate the whole job, not even close, and yet I find the tasks that it cannot automate are so much more boring (the ones I end up doing).
I envy the people who say that AI tools free them up to focus on what they care about. I haven’t been able to achieve this building with ai, if anything it feels like my competence has decreased due to the tools. I’m fairly certain I know how to use the tools well, I just think that I don’t enjoy how the job has evolved.
AI coding is similar. We just had a minor issue with ai generated code that was clearly not vetted as closely as it should have been making output it generated over a couple of months not as accurate as it should be. Obviously, it had to be corrected, then vetted and so on, because there is always time to correct things...
edit: What I am getting at is the old-fashioned, penny smart, but pound foolish.
But when that last 1% breaks and AI can’t fix it. That’s where you need the humans.
This sounds a more likely reason for losing your joy if your passion is coding.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42511441
People are going to be making the same judgements about AI-assisted coding in the near future. Sure, you could code everything yourself for your own personal enrichment, or simply because it's fun. But that will be a pursuit for your own time. In the realm of business, it's a different story: you are either proompting, or you're effectively stealing money from your employer because you're making suboptimal use of the tools available. AI gets you to something working in production so much faster that you'd be remiss not to use it. After all, as Milt and Tim Bryce have shown, the hard work in business software is in requirements analysis and design; programming is just the last translation step.
This has always been true in every craft, and it remains true for programmers in a post LLL world.
Most training data is open source code written by novice to average programmers publishing their first attempts at things and thus LLMS are heavily biased to replicate the naive, slow, insecure code largely uninformed by experience.
Honestly to most programmers early in their career right now, I would suggest spending more time reviewing code, and bugfixes, than writing code. Review is the skillset the industry needs most now.
But you will need to be above average as a software reviewer to be employable. Go out into FOSSland and find a bunch of CVEs, or contribute perf/stability/compat fixes, proving you review and improve things better than existing automated tools.
Trust me, there are bugs -everywhere- if you know how to look for them and proving you can find them is the resume you need now.
The days of anyone that can rub two HTML tags together having a high paying job are over.
misiti3780•2h ago
based on the current state of AI and the progress im witnessing on a month-by-month basis - my current prediction is there is zero chance AI agents are going to be coding and replacing me in the next few years. if i could short the startups claiming this, I would.
tptacek•2h ago
simonw•2h ago
Makes me wonder how many of the people who continue to argue that LLMs can't help with large existing codebases are missing that you need to selectively copy the right chunks of that code into the model to get good results.
IshKebab•1h ago
What tools are you guys using? Are there none that can interactively probe the project in a way that a human would, e.g. use code intelligence to go-to-definition, find all references and so on?
tptacek•1h ago
Our Rust fly-proxy tree is about 80k (cloc) lines of code; our Go flyd tree (a Go monorepo) is 300k. Generally, I'll prompt an LLM to deal with them in stages; a first pass, with some hints, on a general question like "find the code that does XYZ"; I'll review and read the code itself, then feed that back to the LLM with questions like "summarize all the functionality of this package and how it relates to other packages" or "trace the flow of an HTTP request through all the layers of this proxy".
Generally, I'll take the results of those queries and have them saved in .txt files that I can reference in future prompts.
I think sometimes developers are demanding something close to AGI from their tooling, something that would do exactly what they would do (only, in the span of about 15 seconds). I don't believe in AGI, and so I don't expect it from my tools; I just want them to do a better job of fielding arbitrary questions (or generating arbitrary code) than grep or eglot could.
simonw•1h ago
If your codebase is larger than that there are a few tricks.
The first is to be selective about what you feed into the LLM: if you know the work you are doing is in a particular area of the codebase, just paste that bit in. The LLM can make reasonable guesses about things the code references that it can't see.
An increasingly effective trick is to arm a tool-using LLM with a tool like ripgrep (effectively the "interactively probe the project in a way that a human would" idea you suggested). Claude Code and OpenAI Codex both use this trick. The smarter models are really good at deciding what to search for and evaluating the results.
I've built tools that can run against Python code and extract just the class, function and method signatures and their docstrings - omitting the actual code. If you code is well designed and has reasonable documentation that could be enough for the LLM to understand it.
https://github.com/simonw/symbex is my CLI tool for that
https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/23/llm-fragment-symbex/ is a tool I released this morning that turns Symbex into a plugin for my LLM tool.
I use my https://llm.datasette.io/ tool a lot, especially with its new fragments feature: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/7/long-context-llm/
This means I can feed in the exact code that the model needs in order to solve a problem. Here's a recent example:
From https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/20/llm-fragments-github/ - I'm populating the context with the exact examples needed to solve the problem.earthnail•2h ago
As an example, just today I was trying to debug some weird WebSocket behaviour. None of the AI tools could help, not Cursor, not plain old ChatGPT with lots of prompting and careful phrasing of the problem. In fact every LLM I tried (Claude 3.7, GPT o4-mini-high, GPT 4.5) introduced errors into my debugging code.
I’m not saying it will stay this way, just that it’s been my experience.
I still love these tools though. It’s just that I really don’t trust the output, but as inspiration they are phenomenal. Most of the time I just use vanilla ChatGPT though; never had that much luck with Cursor.
codr7•1h ago
UncleEntity•1h ago
A couple days ago I was looking for something to do so gave Claude a paper ("A parsing machine for PEGs") to ask it some questions and instead of answering me it spit out an almost complete implementation. Intrigued, I threw a couple more papers at it ("A Simple Graph-Based Intermediate Representation" && "A Text Pattern-Matching Tool based on Parsing Expression Grammars") where it fleshed out the implementation and, well... color me impressed.
Now, the struggle begins as the thing has to be debugged. With the help of both Claude and Deepseek we got it compiling and passing 2 out of 3 tests which is where they both got stuck. Round and round we go until I, the human who's supposed to be doing no work, figured out that Claude hard coded some values (instead of coding a general solution for all input) which they both missed. In applying ever more and more complicated solutions (to a well solved problem in compiler design) Claude finally broke all debugging output and I don't understand the algorithms enough to go in and debug it myself.
Of course I didn't use any sort of source code management so I could revert to a previous version before it was broken beyond all fixing...
Honestly, I don't even consider this a failure. I learned a lot more on what they are capable of and now know that you have to give them problems in smaller sections where they don't have to figure out the complexities of how a few different algorithms interact with each other. With this new knowledge in hand I started on what I originally intended to do before I got distracted with Claude's code solution to a simple question.
--edit--
Oh, the irony...
After typing this out and making an espresso I figured out the problem Claude and Deepseek couldn't see. So much for the "superior" intelligence.
simonw•2h ago
I'm willing to bet that in a few years most of the developers you know will be using LLMs on a daily basis, and will be more productive because of it (having learned how to use it).
misiti3780•1h ago