←back to thread

Nobody knows how to build with AI yet

(worksonmymachine.substack.com)
526 points Stwerner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.286s | source
Show context
lordnacho ◴[] No.44616832[source]
I'm loving the new programming. I don't know where it goes either, but I like it for now.

I'm actually producing code right this moment, where I would normally just relax and do something else. Instead, I'm relaxing and coding.

It's great for a senior guy who has been in the business for a long time. Most of my edits nowadays are tedious. If I look at the code and decide I used the wrong pattern originally, I have to change a bunch of things to test my new idea. I can skim my code and see a bunch of things that would normally take me ages to fiddle. The fiddling is frustrating, because I feel like I know what the end result should be, but there's some minor BS in the way, which takes a few minutes each time. It used to take a whole stackoverflow search + think, recently it became a copilot hint, and now... Claude simply does it.

For instance, I wrote a mock stock exchange. It's the kind of thing you always want to have, but because the pressure is on to connect to the actual exchange, it is often a leftover task that nobody has done. Now, Claude has done it while I've been reading HN.

Now that I have that, I can implement a strategy against it. This is super tedious. I know how it works, but when I implement it, it takes me a lot of time that isn't really fulfilling. Stuff like making a typo, or forgetting to add the dependency. Not big brain stuff, but it takes time.

Now I know what you're all thinking. How does it not end up with spaghetti all over the place? Well. I actually do critique the changes. I actually do have discussions with Claude about what to do. The benefit here is he's a dev who knows where all the relevant code is. If I ask him whether there's a lock in a bad place, he finds it super fast. I guess you need experience, but I can smell when he's gone off track.

So for me, career-wise, it has come at the exact right time. A few years after I reached a level where the little things were getting tedious, a time when all the architectural elements had come together and been investigated manually.

What junior devs will do, I'm not so sure. They somehow have to jump to the top of the mountain, but the stairs are gone.

replies(15): >>44616871 #>>44616935 #>>44617102 #>>44617254 #>>44618137 #>>44618793 #>>44621101 #>>44621200 #>>44621741 #>>44621995 #>>44622452 #>>44622738 #>>44623119 #>>44624925 #>>44624959 #
ikerino ◴[] No.44617254[source]
Hot take: Junior devs are going to be the ones who "know how to build with AI" better than current seniors.

They are entering the job market with sensibilities for a higher-level of abstraction. They will be the first generation of devs that went through high-school + college building with AI.

replies(5): >>44617657 #>>44621434 #>>44621827 #>>44622643 #>>44625127 #
stefan_ ◴[] No.44617657[source]
Where did they learn sensibility for higher-level of abstraction? AI is the opposite, it will do what you prompt and never stop to tell you its a terrible idea, you will have to learn yourself all the way down into the details that the big picture it chose for you was faulty from the start. Convert some convoluted bash script to run on Windows because thats what the office people run? Get strapped in for the AI PowerShell ride of your life.
replies(2): >>44618114 #>>44628619 #
1. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.44628619[source]
AI is the opposite, it will do what you prompt and never stop to tell you its a terrible idea

That's not true at all, and hasn't been for a while. When using LLMs to tackle an unfamiliar problem, I always start by asking for a comparative review of possible strategies.

In other words, I don't tell it, "Provide a C++ class that implements a 12-layer ABC model that does XYZ," I ask it, "What ML techniques are considered most effective for tasks similar to XYZ?" and drill down from there. I very frequently see answers like, "That's not a good fit for your requirements for reasons 1, 2, and 3. Consider UVW instead." Usually it's good advice.

At the same time I will typically carry on the same conversation with other competing models, and that can really help avoid wasting time on faulty assumptions and terrible ideas.