3 ms·

I think I might have written a comment similar to yours maybe 6 months or a year ago. I'm not quite sure to respond to these sorts of replies. I have used LLMs/

I think I might have written a comment similar to yours maybe 6 months or a year ago. I'm not quite sure to respond to these sorts of replies. I have used LLMs/Claude Code quite extensively professionally and was a very early adopter, have built tooling around LLM/agentic development, and genuinely embraced it. They aren't useless, but the short term gains you think you're getting come at a very steep price that you may not actually account for consciously for quite some time, if ever.

aix1 3mo ago
> a very steep price that you may not actually account for Could you elaborate on this steep price that you have in mind? What does it consist of?
- mrbungie 3mo ago
  From what I gather from GPs upper post: Technical debt, skill atrophy, delusions of grandeur about one's own abilities / psychosis.
- shevis 3mo ago
  The cost is skill atrophy. When was the last time you wrote something entirely from scratch by hand without AI assistance? It’s a skill entirely separate from prompting and reviewing. And it atrophies when you stop using it.
  - aix1 3mo ago
    > The cost is skill atrophy I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure I buy it in the context of this thread (a response to someone who is 54 and has been coding since they were eight). I am in a similar boat, having been coding full-time for fourty years. The way I use the current tools is that I own all architectural and design decisions but let Claude Code fill in the blanks. I reckon the quality of the output is about 90% of what it would have been had I done everything myself, but I get a lot more done (easily 3-5X). Will I forget how to write a "for" loop just because I haven't been writing many of them by hand lately? Those skills are so deeply ingrained that I seriously doubt it. I can ride a bike after a multi-year break, or converse in a language I haven't regularly spoken for several decades. Or write using pen & paper even though I hardly ever do it. I don't see why coding would be any different.
    - defrost 3mo ago
      I have a greater concern about societal skill atrophy. I also am not about to forget how to for(;;), that said, as a result of some years invested in aligning old pre WGS84 mapping with modern GPS and improving digital mapping, there are fewer people per capita with the skills to navigate via paper maps in the absence of GPS. Old farts coding since age 8 (in which I include myself with a decade+ over a sprightly young 54) will retain coding skills for as long as they apply them - the fear is that fewer and fewer others will develop and exercise such skills due to AI. It remains to be seen if that's a bad thing long term.
      - aix1 3mo ago
        I am not worried about the loss of skills per se. Over the centuries the average person has become less skilled at, for example, butchering animals. Is that bad for society? I don't know. What I am worried about is us becoming dependent on tools that we as individuals neither own nor fully control, and gradually losing our ability to function without those tools. This, I think, is a huge societal risk.
- jimbo808 3mo ago
  Technical debt and skill atrophy Technical debt due to accumulated excessively verbose, badly architected, often redundant, feature-bloated code which always looks good, even upon earnest review, but actually sucks and becomes extremely difficult to maintain in ways which are not obvious in code review. The issue is this: your tooling can help, and can make you feel better, and you might think you wrote all the prompts and made all the tools to mitigate these issues, but you haven't. If you're not consistently seeing it generate code that is very very close to the way a skilled senior dev such as yourself would have done it (with similar line count, etc), that is a red flag even if the code looks great and works.
  - mingusrude 3mo ago
    > ...badly architected, often redundant, feature-bloated code which always looks good, even upon earnest review, but actually sucks and becomes extremely difficult to maintain in ways which are not obvious in code review. I can only judge from my own experience but with or without LLMs, these are the codebases that I have worked with during most of my career. To me, much of the question is whether LLMs produce worse code than the me and my colleagues have done in the past and I don't think that's the case. It is however very common that people hold LLMs to a higher standard than human colleagues and then it's not a useful comparison.
    - torginus 3mo ago
      LLMs can produce bad code in ways no human ever would. I remember working on headscratcher problem of walking a tree while gradually building up state, and since LLMs are supposed to be good at algorithms, I asked Claude. It came up with a correct LC-hard tier solution that involved dynamic programming, and was essentially an unreadable dense mess that was impossible to reason through as a human. It worked, but it was so bad, that I sat down and realized after a bit that with maintaining a small cache, and being very particular about how the nodes are traversed, I reduced the solution to like a 10 line modified DFS, that I could understand.
      - socalgal2 3mo ago
illiac786 3mo ago
I think the uncomfortable debate is not about skill atrophy as a general phenomenon (it’s happening anyway, doesn’t matter how much we debate it) but rather, _which_ skills are atrophying and if these skills are now superfluous/worthless or not. If you don’t use a skill, it’s like a gene a species doesn’t need anymore, it will atrophy. Is that bad and if yes, why? Skill atrophy is not intrinsically bad. I don’t know how to make tinted glas for church windows and I will never learn it because there are machines doing it now. But I would for example think that critical thinking would be a catastrophic skill atrophy. As far as I know, there is no proven link though (and one would have to define what is “critical thinking” in the first place). Writing assembler without any autocomplete, I’m not so sure it’s such a problematic skill atrophy.
- simondotau 3mo ago
  One could argue that the cumulative atrophy of skill around writing CPU assembly has been problematic in some respects, but it’s also completely unreasonable to lament what we’ve gained in return. As far as I’m concerned, so long as we can be happy with AI we can run locally, AI is no different to the rise of scripting languages or the pocket calculator. It’s only problematic if the calculator is rented to you as a service.
  - pishpash 3mo ago
    Hence only let your skill atrophy to the extent where if all you had were your local laptop you can still be competent. Relying on paid subscription services for your skill is a fool's errand.
- techpression 3mo ago
  It’s not one single skill being lost, it’s about many and how they interact. I just did a big refactor with opus, it went ok, some bugs. The normal stuff. One of the bugs was in a part of the code no longer needed, which Opus had just filled with comments more or less. Asking it fix the bug worked, but then I really looked at the code and realized just that, this is pointless now. I’ve only been coding for 20+ years so I might be more susceptible than the author, but I’m quite terrified about losing skills in writing code, but also designing good structure, coherency and system overview. These are the things people claim you need more of with LLMs, but is what you outsource the most, even if you think you are describing it in detail. We are all collectively growing the skill of complacency and laziness though, and those are not great ”skills” to have. And I’m just as guilty as anyone.
muse900 3mo ago
I get what you are saying, but how can we be talking about skill atrophy when our main skill is changing from being able to produce code ourselves to being able to leverage LLMs to write that code. At the end of the day there are goals achieved with coding. Coding is a tool to reach either your business needs or some personal aspiration. When it comes to businesses I don't think a business cares if you used the best stack possible, or you've written it in assembly, as long as it works. Judging from the biggest coding drivers out there, most of the code produced globally and the biggest apps out there have had skilled engineers writing code but its not always perfect. As long as it works. Lets not forget that the web is build in php and js. So again my argument is that, are you atrophying a skill that is going to exist in the next 1 to 2 years, or is everything going to shift towards LLM code writting. Personally I think that LLM code writing is the winner, whether we like it or not, it accelerates business objectives, which at the end of the day its what is the deciding factor. And yes I do miss the days I was writing code and I was solving complex problems myself.
- darkwater 3mo ago
  > At the end of the day there are goals achieved with coding. Coding is a tool to reach either your business needs or some personal aspiration. This is your opinion and I even share it, but there are many people here for whom writing the code was/is the whole deal. You would not have languages and heck - even editors! - holy wars otherwise.
  - muse900 3mo ago
    Yes for sure there are people that writing code is the whole deal. How many of them are driving goals and businesses though? Like if we take for example an ex coder like Gabe, someone from his team comes up and says to him "we can launch this game in 1 year by using LLMs, codebase will be meh/okish" or "we can launch this game in 4 years we'll hire the top engineers and write the best software piece ever, a technical novelty". I already know his answer... even if his answer was the 4 years which won't be, his board would disagree. So yes there are people that love and enjoy writing software, but the truth is that business is leading software, not the other way around. For me personally nowadays I don't need languages, I am so deep into coding using LLM's, not vibing, that I don't really mind on what is written. Also we are just at the start of this thing.
socalgal2 3mo ago
It’s hard to know if your experience is relevant from 6 months to year ago. The models are getting better every couple of months. My current experience is mostly like the other senior above. For me the last 4 months I’ve gone from mostly writing code by hand to writing almost no code by hand. I guide the LLM and it’s a force multiplier. I review its code and discuss with it how to test and what needs changing and it does it. I point out things it didn’t handle and it handles them.
- jimbo808 3mo ago
  Uh, I didn't say I stopped using LLM's 6mos to a year ago. I have to for my job, it was just that long ago that I began to understand that they aren't what they seem and definitely aren't a "force multiplier," more like a "debt generator."
DanielHB 3mo ago
I am consistently underwhelmed by the output, I can't really explain it besides LLMs have no taste about what is easier to read for humans. I usually start a task with an LLM and then do small refactors using the LLM and then do some manual refactors before I am done. But often for more complex tasks the manual refactors are quite large. Maybe it is because they can read walls of text so easily, so they output walls of text that are hard to read for humans. I feel quite sad because a lot of my fellow colleagues are not putting this extra effort in to make things easier to understand by humans. PR review is basically me just doing this extra effort for them and their LLM implementing my comments. And that is when I can even pinpoint the bad taste in the code structure, sometimes it is not something you can easily describe in a PR comment besides "no human would structure the code like this".
vidarh 3mo ago
I might have written a comment similar to yours maybe a year ago. Yes, some skills will atrophy, but the learning curve for LLMs is also steep and you will acquire new skills that will pay off the costs many times over. We see this in discussions like these where you have people running the gamut from using them as glorified auto-complete or babysitting them (usually a net loss in speed, though it'll feel less draining) via people running multiple agents in several different tabs (a gain) to people prompting for harnesses rather than tasks, and putting the agent in the resulting harness (where the multipliers come in) and even people at the peak of experience with them today are only scratching the surface. I'm very aware that just as my assembler skills are not what they once were, my skills in the languages I'm now writing less will not be what they once were a few years down this line. But I produced far more before I started using LLMs through the force multiplier of modern languages and frameworks than I did in assembler in the 80's and 90's, and I produce far more now with LLMs, and I will produce even more in the future by learning how to take advantage of new capabilities. I have Claude refining a system that wasn't tractable a few years ago in another terminal as I'm writing this. I don't care if it would take me a bit longer to get back up to speed on a C codebase again if I was stripped of all access to LLMs any more than I care if it'd take me a bit longer to get up to speed on programming assembler on a Commodore 64.
pmarreck 3mo ago
> very steep price I have yet to see it, but OK Either measure it or it sounds like a conspiracy theory

aix1 3mo ago

> a very steep price that you may not actually account for Could you elaborate on this steep price that you have in mind? What does it consist of?

mrbungie 3mo ago
From what I gather from GPs upper post: Technical debt, skill atrophy, delusions of grandeur about one's own abilities / psychosis.
shevis 3mo ago
The cost is skill atrophy. When was the last time you wrote something entirely from scratch by hand without AI assistance? It’s a skill entirely separate from prompting and reviewing. And it atrophies when you stop using it.
- aix1 3mo ago
  > The cost is skill atrophy I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure I buy it in the context of this thread (a response to someone who is 54 and has been coding since they were eight). I am in a similar boat, having been coding full-time for fourty years. The way I use the current tools is that I own all architectural and design decisions but let Claude Code fill in the blanks. I reckon the quality of the output is about 90% of what it would have been had I done everything myself, but I get a lot more done (easily 3-5X). Will I forget how to write a "for" loop just because I haven't been writing many of them by hand lately? Those skills are so deeply ingrained that I seriously doubt it. I can ride a bike after a multi-year break, or converse in a language I haven't regularly spoken for several decades. Or write using pen & paper even though I hardly ever do it. I don't see why coding would be any different.
  - defrost 3mo ago
    I have a greater concern about societal skill atrophy. I also am not about to forget how to for(;;), that said, as a result of some years invested in aligning old pre WGS84 mapping with modern GPS and improving digital mapping, there are fewer people per capita with the skills to navigate via paper maps in the absence of GPS. Old farts coding since age 8 (in which I include myself with a decade+ over a sprightly young 54) will retain coding skills for as long as they apply them - the fear is that fewer and fewer others will develop and exercise such skills due to AI. It remains to be seen if that's a bad thing long term.
    - aix1 3mo ago
      I am not worried about the loss of skills per se. Over the centuries the average person has become less skilled at, for example, butchering animals. Is that bad for society? I don't know. What I am worried about is us becoming dependent on tools that we as individuals neither own nor fully control, and gradually losing our ability to function without those tools. This, I think, is a huge societal risk.
jimbo808 3mo ago
Technical debt and skill atrophy Technical debt due to accumulated excessively verbose, badly architected, often redundant, feature-bloated code which always looks good, even upon earnest review, but actually sucks and becomes extremely difficult to maintain in ways which are not obvious in code review. The issue is this: your tooling can help, and can make you feel better, and you might think you wrote all the prompts and made all the tools to mitigate these issues, but you haven't. If you're not consistently seeing it generate code that is very very close to the way a skilled senior dev such as yourself would have done it (with similar line count, etc), that is a red flag even if the code looks great and works.
- mingusrude 3mo ago
  > ...badly architected, often redundant, feature-bloated code which always looks good, even upon earnest review, but actually sucks and becomes extremely difficult to maintain in ways which are not obvious in code review. I can only judge from my own experience but with or without LLMs, these are the codebases that I have worked with during most of my career. To me, much of the question is whether LLMs produce worse code than the me and my colleagues have done in the past and I don't think that's the case. It is however very common that people hold LLMs to a higher standard than human colleagues and then it's not a useful comparison.
  - torginus 3mo ago
    LLMs can produce bad code in ways no human ever would. I remember working on headscratcher problem of walking a tree while gradually building up state, and since LLMs are supposed to be good at algorithms, I asked Claude. It came up with a correct LC-hard tier solution that involved dynamic programming, and was essentially an unreadable dense mess that was impossible to reason through as a human. It worked, but it was so bad, that I sat down and realized after a bit that with maintaining a small cache, and being very particular about how the nodes are traversed, I reduced the solution to like a 10 line modified DFS, that I could understand.
    - socalgal2 3mo ago

illiac786 3mo ago

I think the uncomfortable debate is not about skill atrophy as a general phenomenon (it’s happening anyway, doesn’t matter how much we debate it) but rather, _which_ skills are atrophying and if these skills are now superfluous/worthless or not. If you don’t use a skill, it’s like a gene a species doesn’t need anymore, it will atrophy. Is that bad and if yes, why? Skill atrophy is not intrinsically bad. I don’t know how to make tinted glas for church windows and I will never learn it because there are machines doing it now. But I would for example think that critical thinking would be a catastrophic skill atrophy. As far as I know, there is no proven link though (and one would have to define what is “critical thinking” in the first place). Writing assembler without any autocomplete, I’m not so sure it’s such a problematic skill atrophy.

simondotau 3mo ago
One could argue that the cumulative atrophy of skill around writing CPU assembly has been problematic in some respects, but it’s also completely unreasonable to lament what we’ve gained in return. As far as I’m concerned, so long as we can be happy with AI we can run locally, AI is no different to the rise of scripting languages or the pocket calculator. It’s only problematic if the calculator is rented to you as a service.
- pishpash 3mo ago
  Hence only let your skill atrophy to the extent where if all you had were your local laptop you can still be competent. Relying on paid subscription services for your skill is a fool's errand.
techpression 3mo ago
It’s not one single skill being lost, it’s about many and how they interact. I just did a big refactor with opus, it went ok, some bugs. The normal stuff. One of the bugs was in a part of the code no longer needed, which Opus had just filled with comments more or less. Asking it fix the bug worked, but then I really looked at the code and realized just that, this is pointless now. I’ve only been coding for 20+ years so I might be more susceptible than the author, but I’m quite terrified about losing skills in writing code, but also designing good structure, coherency and system overview. These are the things people claim you need more of with LLMs, but is what you outsource the most, even if you think you are describing it in detail. We are all collectively growing the skill of complacency and laziness though, and those are not great ”skills” to have. And I’m just as guilty as anyone.

muse900 3mo ago

I get what you are saying, but how can we be talking about skill atrophy when our main skill is changing from being able to produce code ourselves to being able to leverage LLMs to write that code. At the end of the day there are goals achieved with coding. Coding is a tool to reach either your business needs or some personal aspiration. When it comes to businesses I don't think a business cares if you used the best stack possible, or you've written it in assembly, as long as it works. Judging from the biggest coding drivers out there, most of the code produced globally and the biggest apps out there have had skilled engineers writing code but its not always perfect. As long as it works. Lets not forget that the web is build in php and js. So again my argument is that, are you atrophying a skill that is going to exist in the next 1 to 2 years, or is everything going to shift towards LLM code writting. Personally I think that LLM code writing is the winner, whether we like it or not, it accelerates business objectives, which at the end of the day its what is the deciding factor. And yes I do miss the days I was writing code and I was solving complex problems myself.

darkwater 3mo ago
> At the end of the day there are goals achieved with coding. Coding is a tool to reach either your business needs or some personal aspiration. This is your opinion and I even share it, but there are many people here for whom writing the code was/is the whole deal. You would not have languages and heck - even editors! - holy wars otherwise.
- muse900 3mo ago
  Yes for sure there are people that writing code is the whole deal. How many of them are driving goals and businesses though? Like if we take for example an ex coder like Gabe, someone from his team comes up and says to him "we can launch this game in 1 year by using LLMs, codebase will be meh/okish" or "we can launch this game in 4 years we'll hire the top engineers and write the best software piece ever, a technical novelty". I already know his answer... even if his answer was the 4 years which won't be, his board would disagree. So yes there are people that love and enjoy writing software, but the truth is that business is leading software, not the other way around. For me personally nowadays I don't need languages, I am so deep into coding using LLM's, not vibing, that I don't really mind on what is written. Also we are just at the start of this thing.

socalgal2 3mo ago

It’s hard to know if your experience is relevant from 6 months to year ago. The models are getting better every couple of months. My current experience is mostly like the other senior above. For me the last 4 months I’ve gone from mostly writing code by hand to writing almost no code by hand. I guide the LLM and it’s a force multiplier. I review its code and discuss with it how to test and what needs changing and it does it. I point out things it didn’t handle and it handles them.

jimbo808 3mo ago
Uh, I didn't say I stopped using LLM's 6mos to a year ago. I have to for my job, it was just that long ago that I began to understand that they aren't what they seem and definitely aren't a "force multiplier," more like a "debt generator."

DanielHB 3mo ago

I am consistently underwhelmed by the output, I can't really explain it besides LLMs have no taste about what is easier to read for humans. I usually start a task with an LLM and then do small refactors using the LLM and then do some manual refactors before I am done. But often for more complex tasks the manual refactors are quite large. Maybe it is because they can read walls of text so easily, so they output walls of text that are hard to read for humans. I feel quite sad because a lot of my fellow colleagues are not putting this extra effort in to make things easier to understand by humans. PR review is basically me just doing this extra effort for them and their LLM implementing my comments. And that is when I can even pinpoint the bad taste in the code structure, sometimes it is not something you can easily describe in a PR comment besides "no human would structure the code like this".

vidarh 3mo ago

I might have written a comment similar to yours maybe a year ago. Yes, some skills will atrophy, but the learning curve for LLMs is also steep and you will acquire new skills that will pay off the costs many times over. We see this in discussions like these where you have people running the gamut from using them as glorified auto-complete or babysitting them (usually a net loss in speed, though it'll feel less draining) via people running multiple agents in several different tabs (a gain) to people prompting for harnesses rather than tasks, and putting the agent in the resulting harness (where the multipliers come in) and even people at the peak of experience with them today are only scratching the surface. I'm very aware that just as my assembler skills are not what they once were, my skills in the languages I'm now writing less will not be what they once were a few years down this line. But I produced far more before I started using LLMs through the force multiplier of modern languages and frameworks than I did in assembler in the 80's and 90's, and I produce far more now with LLMs, and I will produce even more in the future by learning how to take advantage of new capabilities. I have Claude refining a system that wasn't tractable a few years ago in another terminal as I'm writing this. I don't care if it would take me a bit longer to get back up to speed on a C codebase again if I was stripped of all access to LLMs any more than I care if it'd take me a bit longer to get up to speed on programming assembler on a Commodore 64.

pmarreck 3mo ago

> very steep price I have yet to see it, but OK Either measure it or it sounds like a conspiracy theory