Technology

I definitely don't get the high of coding anymore, but I do get a high of solving complex issues in architectural designs. I realized the high I chased when coding previously have shifted from coding design, to systems design.

it might be nice to get out of this entire industry, if only I could afford to

I got pushed out of the industry right before COVID hit, so I haven't ever dealt with AI. I'm a school bus driver now, which is infinitely more satisfying than programming since I get to drive a big Tonka truck around and gaslight children all day. The only downside is making 1/6 of what I used to make so this is not really a viable alternative for most people. At least I get subsidized health insurance.

Yeah, the other people factor is a pretty good point. Some people in the organization seem to think that they have no liability for their output anymore, so long as AI produced it for them. They will pass on bloated shit, unreviewed shit, laundry lists of glittering generalities, elaborate plans based on fundamental misunderstandings about a tool, … half of the problem never gets noticed because people see a wall of fancy text that they don’t understand, so they think it’s good. Stakeholders aren’t reading that shit, certainly not comprehending it. I know as much, because it’s a steaming pile of horseshit. Nobody is over here actually grading the horseshit. Nobody is having hard discussions about what’s acceptable and what isn’t.

I put a considerable amount of effort into making an LLM do exactly what I want… I use it daily, have for years, and I’m still pretty terrible at it. Just imagine what some people are producing, who actually trust these models… not to mention when they use the fucking model to step into my lane. I will call your shit out in a group conversation if you do that. Don’t fucking do that. If it’s my lane, don’t pollute it with that AI bullshit. Now I have to explain to everyone why that shit doesn’t work. Do a better job.

Wow this is all so true and well put.

Some colleagues are showing off 20k+ line change commits with no review. Whilst I'm at most doing 100 lines, usually 10 or less. I am reading each change. Every plan is read thoroughly with multiple iterations. If I don't understand a part, I ask the AI to explain. It is surprisingly good at explaining the work. However I do find mistakes. I have it commit after every change after the tests work and I'd say a third of the commits are prefixed as "fix: ". I'm still on the fence about the whole thing but it feels good and weird and phoney at the same time.

Second, there are more personal costs. You’ll come to rely more and more on these tools, and your skills will rust.

I mean, if you're curious and you're diligent, you can learn from what the AI chugs out. Skills only stagnate when you trust the AI blindly.

I'd say the bigger problem is that when you're outsourcing junior coder work (even the tedious stuff) to a machine, you're not investing in new junior coders.

Yeah I relate strongly with this. Once you get used to having more time and energy for the tough problems, the interesting stuff, it’s hard to go back to the mechanical and menial.

But I’ve found it’s a lot like riding a bike. You don’t really rust, because the stuff the agents can handle today are the kind of shit that you’ve done so much and from the start, that it has become menial and boring. Which means it’s pretty ingrained into the backbone, at least that’s what I’ve found.

But damn if I don’t feel bad about it, recognizing and being conscious about the societal and environmental cost the convenience has.

The code LLMs spit is IME super buggy and gives as much work to correct it as it would have cost writing it from scratch.. but it generally does the job. The addictive part is where you click a button and avoid thinking how to code.

This is my experience, but im an amateur and actually enjoy programming things.... so, i piss on LLMs taking that from me.

EDIT: i know two persons that actively use LLMs, one does it to avoid having to ibteract with someone that actually knows how to code, the other learned to code to make money, so he really does not care that much.

A fun game to play is watching any tech talk even remotely about UX and replacing the words engagement or retention with addiction. The best category for this would be the 2010's smart phone app design talks.

There is also the 'jagged frontier' that can throw you off. The AI will solve hard problems for you, and you think, "Wow, it is more useful than I thought," and then it gets absolutely stumped on a simple problem: completely stuck and unable to continue. If you are not a developer yourself, but just a vibe coder, you will be stuck there with your AI, with no solution.

But it's really guessing, just like we all are.

Beyond the moralistic objections I have to LLMs, I have serious issues with being fed confidently incorrect answers. I've had my share of configuration hell and I'm not above throwing code at the wall to see what sticks, but at least I have the good sense to drop a comment or mention in my commit that "hey, there's a chance this isn't right and could cause problems".

My coworkers use Claude like an actual brain subscription, and I have started to write off everything they say as if it came straight from the AI. They have gained so much unearned confidence about shit they have no idea about, and have even argued with the development team about it.

I got into an argument about how in band and out of band DTMF work with one of them for a solid half hour before they finally admitted they didn't actually know but were going off what claude said.

I wanted to punch them for wasting everyone's time. If you don't understand stop answering definitively like you're the expert.

Some customers have switched to using AI emails too. Customers that used to ask extremely low level questions will now submit a 2 page long email with action items and explinations about why our product does X, Y, Z, and I have to read it twice to figure out their problem isn't even in the action items because the AI hyper focused on the wrong thing.

Like ok thanks you dumped the entire app log into Claude and asked it "why no work" and Claude read an error message that's benign and now the customer is demanding fixes for something that is not and never has been a problem and won't actually solve the root issue.

And that's why AI tools should only be given to seniors who know where the bullshit is hidden.

I have had a fair amount of success in fixing these kinds of configurations with LLMs when the LLM also has access to independent verification (logs, system info utility output, etc.) that its changes / coding has worked as intended.

When you just give it a job and no way to check its own work, it's a lot like people: it rarely gets it right the first try.

Not if you don't scroll tiktok reels while your agent is coding for you.

Addictions aren't necessarily fun