Now, I can have Claude help me write some code, then ask it about various things I can add or modify it with or maybe try it differently. It gives me more time to spend figuring out the best thing for the user. More various ideas for how to tackle a problem.
I don't let it code willy nilly. I'm fairly precise in what I ask it to do and that's only after I get it to explain how it would go about tackling a problem.
Power doesn’t mean lack of craft. Just different things to craft. Eg we don’t hand-roll assembly anymore.
Still have to know when you need to dive deep and how to approach that.
The last couple of days, I tried having ChatGPT basically write an app for me, but it didn’t really turn out so well.
I look forward to being able to train an agent on my personal technique and style, as well as Quality bar, and have it write a lot of my code.
Not there, yet, but I could see it happening.
I think programming is a job people don’t need to do anymore and anyone who called themselves a software engineer is now a manager of agents. Jira is the interface. Define the requirements.
Writing your own code will still be a thing. We’ll even call those people hackers. But it will be a hobby.
I hope engineers have the sense to really set high prices when we're asked to fix the broken code that your "managers of agents" don't know how to fix
That Grand Canyon sized logical leap quoted ignores a vital concept: understanding.
To "define the requirements" sufficient enough for any given feature/defect/etc. requires a degree of formality not present in prose. This already exists and is in use presently:
Programming languages. See 4GL's[0] and 5GL's[1].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_programming_l...
We have made LLMs that need far less "prompt engineering" to give you something pretty-decent than they did 2 years ago. It makes them WAY more useful as tools.
But then you hit the wall like you mention, or like another poster on this thread saw: "Of course, it's not perfect. For example, it gave me some authentication code that just didn’t work." This happens to me basically daily. And then I give it the error and ask it to modify. And then that doesn't work. And I give it this error. And it suggests the previous failed attempt again.
It's often still 90% of the way there, though, so the tool is pretty valuable.
But is "training on your personal quality bar" achievable? Is there enough high-quality draining data in the world, that it can recognize as high-quality vs low? Are the fundamentals of the prediction machine the right ones to be able to understand at-generation-time "this is not the right approach for this problem" given the huge variety and complexity in so many different programming languages and libraries?
TBD. But I'm a skeptic about that because I've seen "output from a given prompt" improve a ton in 2 years, but I haven't seen that same level of improvement for "output after getting a really really good prompt and some refinement instructions". I have to babysit it less, so I actually use it day to day way more, but it hits the wall in the same sort of very similar, unsurprising ways. (It's harder to describe than that - it's like a "know it when you see it" thing. "Ah, yes, there's a subtly that it doesn't know how to get past because there are so many wrinkles in a particular OAUTH2 implementation, but it was so rare a case in the docs and examples that it's just looping on things that aren't working.")
(The personification of these things really fucks up the discussion. For instance, when someone tells me "no, it was probably just too lazy to figure out the right way" or "it got tired of the conversation." The chosen user-interface of the people making these tools really messes with people's perceptions of them. E.g. if LLM-suggested code that is presented as an in-line autocomplete by Copilot is wrong, people tend to be more like "ah, Copilot's not always that great, it got it wrong" but if someone asks a chatbot instead then they're much more likely to personify the outcome.)
I have the GitHub Copilot for $10, and I’ve been "vibe coding" with it. I asked the AI to give me an example of a combo box, and it gave me something to start with. I used a Bootstrap table and asked the AI to help with pagination, and it provided workable code. of course to seasoned frontend developer, what i'm doing is simple but i haven't work on front end for so long, vibing with AI have been a good expereinces.
Of course, it's not perfect. For example, it gave me some authentication code that just didn’t work. Still, I’ve found AI to be like a “smart” Google, it doesn’t judge me or tell me my question is a duplicated like Stack Overflow.
Research is how people learn. Or to learn requires research. Either way one wants to phrase it, the result is the same.
> Now, I can have Claude help me write some code, then ask it about various things I can add or modify it with or maybe try it differently.
LLM's are statistical text (token) generators and highly sensitive to the the prompt given. More importantly in this context is the effort once expended by a person doing research is at best an exercise in prompt refinement (if the person understands the problem context) or at worst an outsourcing of understanding (if they do not).
> I'm fairly precise in what I ask it to do and that's only after I get it to explain how it would go about tackling a problem.
Again, LLM algorithms strictly output statistically generated text derived from the prompt given.
LLM's do not "explain", as that implies understanding.
They do not "understand how it would go about tackling a problem", as that is a form of anthropomorphization.
Caveat emptor.
This is an important concept IMHO. Maintaining a clear understanding of what a tool is useful for and what it is not allows for appropriate use.
> In the end though, I've found myself being able to do things better and faster especially given a codebase I have no experience in ...
Here, I have to reference what I wrote before:
Research is how people learn. Or to learn requires
research. Either way one wants to phrase it, the
result is the same.
How can one be confident altering a codebase one has no experience with will become "better" without understanding it?
Knowing an LLM produces the most statistically relevant response to any given query, which is orthogonal to the concepts of true/false/right/wrong/etc., and also knowing one has no experience with a codebase, how can one be confident whatever the LLM responds with is relevant/correct/useful?
I have always had a strong drive to produce awe-inspiring software. At every job I have had, I have strived for usability, aesthetics, performance and reliability. I have maintained million LoC codebases and never caused a major issue, while people around me kept creating more problems than they fixed. However I do not recall one single word of encouragement, let alone praise. I do recall being lectured for being fixated on perfectionism a few times.
I took me 15 years to realize that consumers themselves do not care about quality. Until they do, the minority of engineers who strive for it are gonna waste their efforts.
Yes software is complex. Yes, you cannot compare software engineering to mechanical, electrical engineering or architecture. But do we deserve the absolute shit show that every app, website and device has become?
Part of my growth as a developer was connected with realizing that a lot of the issues with quality resulted from miscommunication between “the business” and engineers advocating for quality.
something that people thought about for longer than whatever the deadline they had to work on it. something that radiates the care and human compassion they put into their work.
we all want and need this quality. it is harder to pull off these days for a lot of dumb reasons. i wish we all cared enough to not make it so mysterious, and that we could all rally around it, celebrate it, hold it to high regard.
One kinda heart breaking thing I observed was that especially older users wouldn't get mad at the software, but themselves. They thought everybody else is using this just fine, and they're somehow not smart enough. Motivated me to go that extra mile whenever I can.
This is such a nonsensical statement. Consumers will always find something else if what they're currently using isn't up to what they paid for.
People can only tolerate so much. My current employer just switched from one HR software to another
A small minority can but in general the software you can use is determined by IT, procurement and leadership, and corporations controlling operating systems and hardware.
Ultimately though none of the rendering speed improvements or collaboration ideas make a difference to me. Then there are major feature gaps like not being able to open Jupyter notebooks or view images when connected over ssh that keep bringing me back to vscode editors where everything just works out of the box or with an extension. The developers have great craftsmanship but, they are also tasked with reimplementing a whole ecosystem.
And ultimately I think native performance just keeps being less and less of a draw as agents write most of the code and I spend time reviewing it where web tools are more than adequate.
I want craftsmanship to be important as someone who takes pride in their work and likes nice tools. I just haven’t seen evidence of it being worth it over “good-enough and iterate fast” engineering. I don’t think this vision of engineering will win out over “good enough and fast”
Oh I'm sure of it. However that won't be good enough for the MBA'S. My prediction is that AI slopware is going to drive the average quality of software back down to the buggy infuriating 1000 manual workarounds sofware of the late 90's and early 00's.
Then the pendulum will swing back.
I feel this way as well. I've tried to incorporate Zed into my workflow a few times but I keep getting blocked by 30 years of experience with Emacs. E.g. I need C-x 2 to split my window. I need C-x C-b to show me all my buffers. I need a dired mode that can behave like any ordinary buffer. Etc. etc.
Sadly the list is quite long and while Zed offers many nice things, none are as essential to me as these.
Aren't things bound to come to a point where quality is a defining feature of certain products? Like take video game software for example. The amount of polish and quality that goes into good selling games is insane. There video game market is so saturated that the things that come up on top must have a high level of polish and quality put into them.
Another thought experiment: imagine thousands of company startups for creating task managers. I can't imagine that those products with strong engineering fundamentals wound't end up on top. To drive this point even further, despite the rise of AI, I don't think I've seen even one example of a longstanding company being disrupted by an "AI native" "agentic first" company.
We have done a terrible job at allocating the net benefits of globalization. We will (continue to) do a terrible job at allocating the net benefits of productivity improvements.
The "why" is hard to answer. But one thing is clear: the United States has a dominant economic ideology, and the name of that ideology is not hardworker-ism.
Unfortunately this will never happen. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of capital
When a machine can double your productivity, capital buys the machine for you and fires one of your coworkers
Or the machine makes it so less skilled people can do the same work you do. But since they're less skilled, they command less pay. So capital pays them less, and devalues your work
Already seeing this with AI. My employer is demanding all engineers start using LLM tools, citing that it is "an easy 20% boost". Not sure where they got the number but whatever.
But is everyone going to get a 20% raise? No. Not a chance. Capital will always try to capture 100% of any productivity gains for themselves
that's an easy one: by destroying itself, and taking social media and smartphones with it
Historically engineering teams have had to balance their backlog and technical debt, limiting what new features/functionality was even possible (in a reasonable timeframe).
If you squint at the existing landscape (Claude Code, o3, codex, etc.) you can start to envision a new quality bar for software.
Not only will software used by millions get better, but the world of software for 10s or 1000s of users can now actually be _good_, with much less effort.
Sure we’ll still have the railroad tycoons[0] of the old world, but the new world is so so vast!
There is no evidence to suggest this is true.
LLMs are trained on poor code quality and as a result, output poor code quality.
In fact, the "S" in LLM stands for security, which LLMs always consider when generating code.
LLMs are great, but the potential for high quality software is not one of the selling points.
This is an already outdated take. Modern LLMs use synthetic data, and coding specifically uses generate -> verify loops. Recent stuff like context7 also help guide the LLMs towards using modern libs, even if they are outside the training cut-off.
> In fact, the "S" in LLM stands for security, which LLMs always consider when generating code.
This is reminiscent of "AI will never do x, because it doesn't do x now" of the gpt-3.5 era. Oh, look, it's so cute that it can output something that looks like python, but it will never get programming. And yet here we are.
There's nothing special about security. everything that works for coding / devops / agentic loops will work for security as well. If anything, the absolute bottom line will rise with LLM-assisted stacks. We'll get "smarter" wapitis / metasploits, and agentic autonomous scanners, and verifiers. Instead of siems missing 80% of attacks [0] while also inundating monitoring consoles with unwanted alerts, you'll get verified reports where a codex/claude/jules will actually test and provide PoC for each report they make.
I think we've seen this "oh, but it can't do this so it's useless" plenty of times in the past 2 years. And each and every time we got newer, better versions. Security is nothing special.
[0] - https://www.darkreading.com/cybersecurity-operations/siems-m...
You can vibe code an entire mess and it'll still "work". We've seen this already. As good as LLMs are they still write overly verbose, sloppy and often inefficient code. But if it works, most people won't care - and won't notice the security flaws that are going to be rife in such large, and frankly mostly unread, codebases.
Honestly I think the security world is primed for it's most productive years.
I agree. But what I'm trying to say is that we'll soon have automated agents that look for vulnerabilities, in agentic flows, ready to be plugged into ci/cd pipelines.
> Honestly I think the security world is primed for it's most productive years.
In the short term, I agree. In the long run I think a lot of it will be automated. Smart fuzzers, agentic vuln scanning, etc. My intuition is that we'll soon see "GAN"-like pipelines with red vs. blue agents trained in parallel.
We already have that, and we can see it doesn't perform very well.
An agent that has no reasoning ability will not generate better code than what it was trained on.
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/llms-dont-do-formal-reason...
What you get when it becomes easier to generate code/applications is a whole lot more code and a whole lot more noise to deal with. Sure, some of it is going to be well crafted – but a lot of it will not be.
It’s like the mobile app stores. Once these new platforms became available, everyone had a go at building an app. A small portion of them are great examples of craftsmanship – but there is an ocean of badly designed, badly implemented, trivial, and copycat apps out there as well. And once you have this type of abundance, it creates a whole new class of problems for the users but potentially also developers.
The other thing is, it really doesn’t align with the priorities of most companies. I’m extremely skeptical that any of them will suddenly go: “Right, enough of cutting corners and tech debt, we can really sort that out with AI.”
No, instead they will simply direct extra capacity towards new features, new products, and trying to get more market share. Complexity will spiral, all the cut corners and tech debt will still be there, and the end result will be that things will be even further down the hole.
I think the more pressing issues are costs: opportunity cost, sunk cost, signal to noise ratio.
Same could be said of traditional desktop software development and the advent of web apps I suppose.
I guess I'm not that worried, other than being worried about personally finding myself in a technological or cultural eddy.
Why on earth people expect to attach gpu farms to render characters into their codebase to not only not increase its entropy but to lower it?
The article is making a normative argument. It is not saying what people "will" do but instead what they "should" do.
That ship has sailed because everyone wants to sell what you're selling. Craftmanship is a blah blah ... maybe, but this is being sacrificed for profit, and the profit happens because everyone wants to vibe. ;)
I'm feeling that vibe brah.
It's challenging & fun to build things where your audience is gonna form their own technical impressions of how well crafted your thing is! It's fun for engineering to matter!
Also, the few times I've use "handcrafted" software it's underwhelming in terms of functionality, apart from a few FOSS programs that have thousands of contributors.
Life is short and hardware is relatively cheap.
You're right, people don't care about craftsmanship, until their vibe coded TLS implementation causes their government to track them down and have them executed. Then, suddenly, it matters.
People don't "care" about material science either. Without it, we'd be screwed.
But on the whole, a lot of software (mostly user facing) is pretty bloated, filled with bugs and no one cares.
When friends and family ask me about which software to buy/use/install, I recommend them something that I think is well crafted. They ask me, because they know I care.
once the web took over - people took quality for granted since you can easily ship a fix (well those never happen). then move fast & break things. software has been shoddy since. Yeah you can make excellent software on web technologies - so the web isn't the problem.
it's US.
With larger projects and more modern code this is simply not an issue, and hasn't been for decades for me at least.
If you are a 10x developer coding assembly, sure?
That would leave you to the creative part of painting, while removing some of the more mechanical and less creative parts.
hintymad•20h ago
majormajor•18h ago
Where is the room for "vibe coder" - or really any of the business people that would hypothetically be using agents to "just write their own code"?
Teams and tools will certainly look different. But people crave novelty which is a big part of why I've never been on an engineering team that was staffed enough to come even close to the output the business owners and product teams desired. So I don't think we'll actually hit the end of the road there.
--
In a true-super-human-AGI world things look very different, but then there's one question that matters more than any others: where is the money coming from to build and maintain the machines? The AGI agent that can replace an engineer can actually replace an entire company - why go to a vibe-coding entrepreneur and let them take a cut when you can just explain what you need to an agent yourself? The agent will be smarter than that entrepreneur, definitionally.
hintymad•3h ago
Probably not, but the numbers may vary. Case in point, we have a booming chip industry now, but the demand for EE graduates is still far less than that for CS graduates, even under the current tough market condition.