alt Hacker NewsI disagree. I used to spend most of my time writing code, fixing syntax, thinking through how to structure the code, looking up documentation on how to use a library.
Now I first discuss with an AI Agent or ChatGPT to write a thorough spec before handing it off to an agent to code it. I don’t read every line. Instead, I thoroughly test the outcome.
Bugs that the AI agent would write, I would have also wrote. Example is unexpected data that doesn’t match expectations. Can’t fault the AI for those bugs.
I also find that the AI writes more bug free code than I did. It handles cases that I wouldn’t have thought of. It used best practices more often than I did.
Maybe I was a bad dev before LLMs but I find myself producing better quality applications much quicker.
Replies
> Now I first discuss with an AI Agent or ChatGPT to write a thorough spec before handing it off to an agent to code it. I don’t read every line. Instead, I thoroughly test the outcome.
This is likely the future.
That being said: "I used to spend most of my time writing code, fixing syntax, thinking through how to structure the code, looking up documentation on how to use a library.".
If you are spending a lot of time fixing syntax, have you looked into linters? If you are spending too much time thinking about how to structure the code, how about spending some days coming up with some general conventions or simply use existing ones.
If you are getting so much productivity from LLMs, it is worth checking if you were simply unproductive relative to your average dev in the first place. If that's the case, you might want to think, what is going to happen to your productivity gains when everyone else jumps on the LLM train. LLMs might be covering for your unproductivity at the code level, but you might still be dropping the ball in non-code areas. That's the higher level pattern I would be thinking about.
You have way more trust in test suites than I do. How complex is the code you’re working with? In my line of work most serious bugs surface in complex interactions between different subsystems that are really hard to catch in a test suite. Additionally in my experience the bugs AI produces are completely alien. You can have perfect code for large functions and then somewhere in the middle absolutely nonsensical mistakes. Reviewing AI code is really hard because you can’t use your normal intuitions and really have to check everything meticulously.
> Example is unexpected data that doesn’t match expectations. Can’t fault the AI for those bugs.
I don't understand, how can you not fault AI for generating code that can't handle unexpected data gracefully? Expectations should be defined, input validated, and anything that's unexpected should be rejected. Resilience against poorly formatted or otherwise nonsensical input is a pretty basic requirement.
I hope I severely misunderstood what you meant to say because we can't be having serious discussions about how amazing this technology is if we're silently dropping the standards to make it happen.