6 ms·

> Spin up agents to tackle routine tasks that take you out of your flow, such as codebase research, bug fixes, and backlog tasks. The software of the future, w

> Spin up agents to tackle routine tasks that take you out of your flow, such as codebase research, bug fixes, and backlog tasks. The software of the future, where nobody on staff knows how anything is built, no one understands why anything breaks, and cruft multiplies exponentially. But at least we're not taken out of our flow!

SR2Z 11mo ago
If you're building something new you'll need some skilled people around
bakies 11mo ago
After a bunch of people leave the company it's already like nobody knows how anything is built. This seems like a good thing to accelerate understanding a codebase.
- skeeter2020 11mo ago
  it's funny - nervous funny, not haha funny - that you think drawing a real issue like this out into the open would focus an organization on solving it.
  - onion2k 11mo ago
    There is a lot more money in selling a tool to manage a problem rather than solve a problem.
- cactusplant7374 11mo ago
  Agents pretty good at describing how a particular feature works. It's not as dire as you make it seem.
  - bakies 11mo ago
    that's what i mean
crazygringo 11mo ago
You can ask agents to identify and remove cruft. You can ask an agent why something is breaking -- to hypothesize potential causes and test them for validity. If you don't understand how something is built, you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more. And it's not like any of your criticisms don't apply to human teams. They also let cruft develop, are confused by breakages, and don't understand the code because everyone on the original team has since left for another company.
- renegade-otter 11mo ago
  Because what we need is not lazy people - we need lazy people with AI? How is this even a justification?
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Sorry, where did "lazy people" come from? Nobody's talking about anybody being lazy.
    - infintropy 11mo ago
      I just like that evolution doesnt really care. People can opine on laziness and proper methodology. Its handwaving compared to how things shake out. Nature does select for laziness. The laziest state that can outpace entropy in diverse ways? Ideal selection.
- NitpickLawyer 11mo ago
  > you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more. This is actually a cool use that's being explored more and more. I first saw it in the wiki thing from the devin people, and now google released one as well.
  - theshrike79 11mo ago
    There's a cool demo from Anthropic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwMu0pyYZBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwMu0pyYZBc Where they use Claude to analyse an old (demo) COBOL application. And it understands the context of the files, decrypts the process and even draws graphs to the documentation it creates. I wish I had this 20 years ago when I was consulting and had to jump into really funky client codebases with zero documentation and everything on fire.
nova22033 11mo ago
The software of the future, where nobody on staff knows how anything is built Doesn't this apply to people who code in high level languages?
- medvezhenok 11mo ago
  The increasing levels of abstraction work only as long as the abstractions are deterministic (with some limited exceptions - i.e. branch prediction/preloading at CPU level, etc). You can still get into issues with leaky abstractions, but generally they are quite rare in established high->low level language transformations. This is more akin to manager-level view of the code (who need developers to go and look at the "deterministic" instructions); the abstraction is a lot lot more leaky than high->low level languages.
- skeeter2020 11mo ago
  even JS doesn't churn as fast as the models powering vibe coding, and that cut & paste node app is still deterministic, compared to what happens when the next version of the model looks at AI-generated code from two years ago...
- zahlman 11mo ago
  In the 00s I saw so many C codebases with hand-rolled linked lists where dynamically resized arrays would be more appropriate, "should be big enough" static allocations with no real idea of how to determine that size, etc. Hardly anyone seemed to have a practical understanding of hashes. When you use a higher level language, you get steered towards the practical, fundamental data structures more or less automatically.
foobarian 11mo ago
> The software of the future, :chuckles nervously:
cindori 11mo ago
[flagged]
- dweinus 11mo ago
  This argument warrants introspection for "crusty devs", but also has holes. A compiler is tightly engineered and dependable. I have never had to write assembly because I know that my compiled code 100% represents my abstract code and any functional problems are in my abstract code. That is not true in AI coding. Additionally, AI coding is not just an abstraction over code, but an abstraction over understanding. When my code compiles, I don't need to worry that the compiler misunderstood my intention. I'm not saying AI is not a useful abstraction, but I am saying that it is not a trustworthy one.
- phantasmish 11mo ago
  I’d worry about mastering the shift key, first.
- sponnath 11mo ago
  How is a compiler and an LLM equivalent abstractions? I'm also seriously doubtful of the 10x claim any time someone brings it up when AI is being discussed. I'm sure they can be 10x for some problems but they can also be -10x. They're not as consistently predictable (and good) like compilers are. The "learn to master it or become obsolete" sentiment also doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Isn't the whole point of AI as a technology that people shouldn't need to spend years mastering a craft to do something well? It's literally trying to automate intelligence.
- broodbucket 11mo ago
  I do still write assembly sometimes, and it's a valued skill because it'll always be important and not everyone can do it. Compilers haven't obsoleted writing assembly by hand for some use cases, and LLMs will never obsolete actually writing code either. I would be incredibly cautious about throwing all your eggs into the AI basket before you atrophy a skill that fewer and fewer will have
- satvikpendem 11mo ago
  Do you want your software to now be stochastic instead of deterministic? That is where the analogy becomes flawed.
neurostimulant 11mo ago
Vibe code fixer seems to be a viable job soon

SR2Z 11mo ago

If you're building something new you'll need some skilled people around

bakies 11mo ago

After a bunch of people leave the company it's already like nobody knows how anything is built. This seems like a good thing to accelerate understanding a codebase.

skeeter2020 11mo ago
it's funny - nervous funny, not haha funny - that you think drawing a real issue like this out into the open would focus an organization on solving it.
- onion2k 11mo ago
  There is a lot more money in selling a tool to manage a problem rather than solve a problem.
cactusplant7374 11mo ago
Agents pretty good at describing how a particular feature works. It's not as dire as you make it seem.
- bakies 11mo ago
  that's what i mean

crazygringo 11mo ago

You can ask agents to identify and remove cruft. You can ask an agent why something is breaking -- to hypothesize potential causes and test them for validity. If you don't understand how something is built, you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more. And it's not like any of your criticisms don't apply to human teams. They also let cruft develop, are confused by breakages, and don't understand the code because everyone on the original team has since left for another company.

renegade-otter 11mo ago
Because what we need is not lazy people - we need lazy people with AI? How is this even a justification?
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Sorry, where did "lazy people" come from? Nobody's talking about anybody being lazy.
  - infintropy 11mo ago
    I just like that evolution doesnt really care. People can opine on laziness and proper methodology. Its handwaving compared to how things shake out. Nature does select for laziness. The laziest state that can outpace entropy in diverse ways? Ideal selection.
NitpickLawyer 11mo ago
> you can ask the agent to give you an overview of the architecture and then dive into whatever part you want to explore more. This is actually a cool use that's being explored more and more. I first saw it in the wiki thing from the devin people, and now google released one as well.
- theshrike79 11mo ago
  There's a cool demo from Anthropic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwMu0pyYZBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwMu0pyYZBc Where they use Claude to analyse an old (demo) COBOL application. And it understands the context of the files, decrypts the process and even draws graphs to the documentation it creates. I wish I had this 20 years ago when I was consulting and had to jump into really funky client codebases with zero documentation and everything on fire.

nova22033 11mo ago

The software of the future, where nobody on staff knows how anything is built Doesn't this apply to people who code in high level languages?

medvezhenok 11mo ago
The increasing levels of abstraction work only as long as the abstractions are deterministic (with some limited exceptions - i.e. branch prediction/preloading at CPU level, etc). You can still get into issues with leaky abstractions, but generally they are quite rare in established high->low level language transformations. This is more akin to manager-level view of the code (who need developers to go and look at the "deterministic" instructions); the abstraction is a lot lot more leaky than high->low level languages.
skeeter2020 11mo ago
even JS doesn't churn as fast as the models powering vibe coding, and that cut & paste node app is still deterministic, compared to what happens when the next version of the model looks at AI-generated code from two years ago...
zahlman 11mo ago
In the 00s I saw so many C codebases with hand-rolled linked lists where dynamically resized arrays would be more appropriate, "should be big enough" static allocations with no real idea of how to determine that size, etc. Hardly anyone seemed to have a practical understanding of hashes. When you use a higher level language, you get steered towards the practical, fundamental data structures more or less automatically.

foobarian 11mo ago

> The software of the future, :chuckles nervously:

cindori 11mo ago

[flagged]

dweinus 11mo ago
This argument warrants introspection for "crusty devs", but also has holes. A compiler is tightly engineered and dependable. I have never had to write assembly because I know that my compiled code 100% represents my abstract code and any functional problems are in my abstract code. That is not true in AI coding. Additionally, AI coding is not just an abstraction over code, but an abstraction over understanding. When my code compiles, I don't need to worry that the compiler misunderstood my intention. I'm not saying AI is not a useful abstraction, but I am saying that it is not a trustworthy one.
phantasmish 11mo ago
I’d worry about mastering the shift key, first.
sponnath 11mo ago
How is a compiler and an LLM equivalent abstractions? I'm also seriously doubtful of the 10x claim any time someone brings it up when AI is being discussed. I'm sure they can be 10x for some problems but they can also be -10x. They're not as consistently predictable (and good) like compilers are. The "learn to master it or become obsolete" sentiment also doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Isn't the whole point of AI as a technology that people shouldn't need to spend years mastering a craft to do something well? It's literally trying to automate intelligence.
broodbucket 11mo ago
I do still write assembly sometimes, and it's a valued skill because it'll always be important and not everyone can do it. Compilers haven't obsoleted writing assembly by hand for some use cases, and LLMs will never obsolete actually writing code either. I would be incredibly cautious about throwing all your eggs into the AI basket before you atrophy a skill that fewer and fewer will have
satvikpendem 11mo ago
Do you want your software to now be stochastic instead of deterministic? That is where the analogy becomes flawed.

neurostimulant 11mo ago

Vibe code fixer seems to be a viable job soon