4 ms·

AI is coming for you John Connor.

sreekanth850 1y ago
I see where you’re coming from, but there’s a small difference. Coding itself is mostly a routine tasks, turning ideas into working code. Humans really stand out in the important parts:creative thinking, planning and architecting the system, deciding what it should do, how it should do, finding problems, checking code quality, and making smart decisions that a tool can’t. AI can help with the routine work, but the creative and thinking parts are still human.And this is exactly where developers should focus and evolve themselves.
- Copenjin 1y ago
  > creative thinking, planning and architecting the system, deciding what it should do, how it should do, finding problems, checking code quality, and making smart decisions that a tool can’t. Are you aware that there are people that think that even now AI can do everything you describe?
  - sreekanth850 1y ago
    Then its a problem.
  - aforwardslash 1y ago
    It can. The reason crappy software has existed since...ever is because people are notoriously bad at thinking, planning and architecting systems. When someone does a "smart decision", it often translates to the nightmare of someone else 5 or 10 years down the line. Most people shouldn't be making "smart decisions"; they should be making boring decisions, as most software is actually a glorified crud. There are exceptions, obviously, but don't think you're special - your code also sucks and your design is crap :) the goal is often to be less sucky and less crappier than one would expect; in the end, its all ones and zeros, and the fancy abstractions exist to dumb down the ones and zeros to concepts humans can grasp. A machine can and will, obviously, produce better results and better reasoning than an average solution designer; it can consider a multitude of options a single person seldom can; it can point out from the get-go shortcomings and domain-specific pitfalls a human wouldnt even think of in most cases. So go ahead, try it. Feed it your design and ask about shortcomings; ask about risk management strategies; ask about refactoring and maintenance strategies; you'd probably be surprised.
    - sreekanth850 1y ago
      People often blame LLMs for bad code, but the real issue is usually poor input or unclear context. An LLM can produce weak code if you give weak instructions but it can also write production ready code if you guide it well, explain the approach clearly, and mention what security measures are needed. The same rule applies to developers too. I’m really surprised to see so much resistance from the developer community, instead, they should use AI to boost their productivity and efficiency. Personally Iam dead against using CLI tools, istead IDE based tools will give your better visibility on code produced and betetr control over the changes.
    - Copenjin 1y ago
      I completely understand what you mean, as creator of boring and stable solutions deployed in production and in some cases still there untouched for nearly two decades. But no, I don't agree about the "it can consider a multitude of options a single person seldom can" part since it's not really what is happening right now, it does not work this way. > So go ahead, try it. Feed it your design and ask about shortcomings; ask about risk management strategies; ask about refactoring and maintenance strategies; you'd probably be surprised. Answers to this and other kinds of questions are in my opinion just a watered down version of actual thinking currently. Interesting but still too simple and not that actionable. What I mainly use LLMs for is exploring the space of solutions, that I will then investigate if there is something promising (mainly deep research of topics or possible half broken/random solutions to problems). I'm not really interested in an actual answer most of the time but more avenues for investigation that I didn't consider. Anyway, I'm not saying that AI is useless right now.

I see where you’re coming from, but there’s a small difference. Coding itself is mostly a routine tasks, turning ideas into working code. Humans really stand out in the important parts:creative thinking, planning and architecting the system, deciding what it should do, how it should do, finding problems, checking code quality, and making smart decisions that a tool can’t. AI can help with the routine work, but the creative and thinking parts are still human.And this is exactly where developers should focus and evolve themselves.

Copenjin 1y ago
> creative thinking, planning and architecting the system, deciding what it should do, how it should do, finding problems, checking code quality, and making smart decisions that a tool can’t. Are you aware that there are people that think that even now AI can do everything you describe?
- sreekanth850 1y ago
  Then its a problem.
- aforwardslash 1y ago
  It can. The reason crappy software has existed since...ever is because people are notoriously bad at thinking, planning and architecting systems. When someone does a "smart decision", it often translates to the nightmare of someone else 5 or 10 years down the line. Most people shouldn't be making "smart decisions"; they should be making boring decisions, as most software is actually a glorified crud. There are exceptions, obviously, but don't think you're special - your code also sucks and your design is crap :) the goal is often to be less sucky and less crappier than one would expect; in the end, its all ones and zeros, and the fancy abstractions exist to dumb down the ones and zeros to concepts humans can grasp. A machine can and will, obviously, produce better results and better reasoning than an average solution designer; it can consider a multitude of options a single person seldom can; it can point out from the get-go shortcomings and domain-specific pitfalls a human wouldnt even think of in most cases. So go ahead, try it. Feed it your design and ask about shortcomings; ask about risk management strategies; ask about refactoring and maintenance strategies; you'd probably be surprised.
  - sreekanth850 1y ago
    People often blame LLMs for bad code, but the real issue is usually poor input or unclear context. An LLM can produce weak code if you give weak instructions but it can also write production ready code if you guide it well, explain the approach clearly, and mention what security measures are needed. The same rule applies to developers too. I’m really surprised to see so much resistance from the developer community, instead, they should use AI to boost their productivity and efficiency. Personally Iam dead against using CLI tools, istead IDE based tools will give your better visibility on code produced and betetr control over the changes.
  - Copenjin 1y ago
    I completely understand what you mean, as creator of boring and stable solutions deployed in production and in some cases still there untouched for nearly two decades. But no, I don't agree about the "it can consider a multitude of options a single person seldom can" part since it's not really what is happening right now, it does not work this way. > So go ahead, try it. Feed it your design and ask about shortcomings; ask about risk management strategies; ask about refactoring and maintenance strategies; you'd probably be surprised. Answers to this and other kinds of questions are in my opinion just a watered down version of actual thinking currently. Interesting but still too simple and not that actionable. What I mainly use LLMs for is exploring the space of solutions, that I will then investigate if there is something promising (mainly deep research of topics or possible half broken/random solutions to problems). I'm not really interested in an actual answer most of the time but more avenues for investigation that I didn't consider. Anyway, I'm not saying that AI is useless right now.