6 ms·
This is half question, half thought experiment: What exactly is it that makes us think „great, I can delegate coding to the agent, and focus on architecture mys
by ManuelKiessling 3mo ago
This is half question, half thought experiment: What exactly is it that makes us think „great, I can delegate coding to the agent, and focus on architecture myself“, instead of „great, I can delegate coding to the agent, and I can delegate architecture to the agent, and I can focus on <third thing> myself“?
And how many levels up can you construct this sentence before things go south?
What I‘m implying with this question is, of course: What makes us so confident that these things are not also better architects than us?
After all there is a huge corpus on how to architect applications correctly, and that’s in the training data just as much as Python best practices and C++ style recommendations.
- brazukadev 3mo agoYou can delegate architecture to agents, as long as you know different architectures and decide which one is the most fit for a given scenario. AI can choose one but it will usually pick the one that is more present in the training corpus. React + NextJS is a terrible architectural decision for most projects that LLMs recommend all the time.
- whoke 3mo agoI'd say this is relative to the novelty of the problem domain. At work I'm often solving problems that have fairly standard solutions, e.g. Python scripts to automate build and execution workflows. For this stuff I'm often happy to delegate architecture, and in general, since I spend a lot of time working with legacy code, the solutions the models develop are both clearer and more maintainable than what was already there. The personal project I'm working on (small research compiler for stateless computation) has sparse precedent, and because of this I spend a lot more time hashing out architectural questions with the models. I think of it as a collaborative enterprise.