logoalt Hacker News

suralindtoday at 11:04 AM3 repliesview on HN

No surprise, really. You can use AI to explore new horizons or propose an initial sketch, but for anything larger than small changes - you must do a rewrite. Not just a review. An actual rewrite. AI can do well adding a function, but you can't vibe code an app and get smarter.

I don't necessarily think that writing more code means you get better coder. I automate nearly all my tests with AI and large chunk of bugfixing as well. I will regularly ask AI to propose an architecture or introduce a new pattern if I don't have a goal in my mind. But in these last 2 examples, I will always redesign the entire approach to be what I consider a better, cleaner interface. I don't recall AI ever getting that right, but must admit I asked AI in the first place cos I didn't know where to start.

If I had to summarize, I would say to let AI implement coding, but not API design/architecture. But at the same time, you can only get good at those by knowing what doesn't work and trying to find a better solution.


Replies

mickeyptoday at 11:21 AM

> No surprise, really. You can use AI to explore new horizons or propose an initial sketch, but for anything larger than small changes - you must do a rewrite. Not just a review. An actual rewrite. AI can do well adding a function, but you can't vibe code an app and get smarter.

Sometimes I wonder if people who make statements like this have ever actually casually browsed Twitter or reddit or even attempted a "large" application themselves with SOTA models.

show 2 replies
teiferertoday at 11:09 AM

> I automate nearly all my tests with AI

How exactly? Do you tell the agent "please write a test for this" or do you also feed it some form of spec to describe what the tested thing is expected to do? And do these tests ever fail?

Asking because the first option essentially just sets the bugs in stone.

Wouldn't it make sense to do it the other way around? You write the test, let the AI generate the code? The test essentially represents the spec and if the AI produces sth which passes all your tests but is still not what you want, then you have a test hole.

show 1 reply
james_markstoday at 11:24 AM

This is why the quality of my code has improved since using AI.

I can iterate on entire approaches in the same amount of time it would have taken to explore a single concept before.

But AI is an amplifier of human intent- I want a code base that’s maintainable, scalable, etc., and that’s a different than YOLO vibe coding. Vibe engineering, maybe.