Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > I spent that time building, learning, and trying to get better. Looking back now, much of it feels like time spent getting better at a problem that has already been solved.
> And so I have come to a harsher conclusion: I wasted a lot of that time. What I have done feels bad, and I do not see what is left for me to do in this direction.
Unless you didn't actually build, learn and improve, how could it have been a waste?
Do you really not value becoming a more capable person, in and of itself?
by zahlman - I remember my first words I said when tested the claude code... for me, an software engineer with over 10 years of experience it was like a god mode. I can basically do anything I want, having my domain knowledge, experience and hundreds of closed projects but... now after months of using it I can clearly see the coding problem is not solved.
Working on more complex problems still takes a lot of time, the models get lost, often jumping into a "solving loop" where the same solutions are being tested over and over again. You still need to guide the model, guide the loop otherwise it's lost or it's shipping a wrong solution, often even something different. Don't you now spend much more time on reading the results? iterating? Nothing changed, it's just a different way you're getting to the right place. Without a good software engineering knowledge you can't do a bulletproof, secure and high grade software. We're still far from doing a single prompt and getting a great grade output.
We might be heading that direction so personally I'm focusing on improving my soft skills, improving my general knowledge about the business, many skills around software engineering (closed to the client side, closer to the business) that until now were useless (at least I thought so).
This is an amazing time for experienced software engineers, learn more than before, try new things and this god mode will bear fruit!
by coder-pm - This sentiment is why more and more apps/websites and tools start looking the same, acting the same and being broken in the same corners.
From what I can tell we ain't actually there yet. We will be sure, but at this point in time my human perspective and input is everything that keeps my stuff from going generic.
by herbst - Storage and memory prices are so outrageous that I'm "discovering" multiple old hard drives in my basement that I will be using for backups soon. I'm lucky that my son asked for a "gaming" machine for Christmas in 2024, so now we have a spare desktop with a 9800X3D and 64GB of ECC RAM which I'm hoping will last forever.
And this is a problem which we all share. Because prices are so outrageous, we have to do heavy computations with limited memory and storage while maintaining privacy. So there's a lot to do here with software, including creating easy to use and verify privacy-enforcing computing environments for specific purposes, and writing computational software which is more efficient so that we are not beholden to "cloud providers". Talk to folks in offices unrelated to tech. There is a lot of stuff you can be doing for them.
by raegis - I think it is a mistake to code with AI. You are moving your brain to an external company (paid one) generating a enormous dependency.Now, you are an useless professional who depends on chatx,claudex, etc. Programming is much more that just generating code, takes years to be proficient. What is going to happen when a new generation of software engineers do not know real programming...?by samoit
- > The important part seems to be knowing what to ask, what to check, and what you are actually trying to build.
1. Understanding user requirements/pain points is very important and many get it wrong.
2. Doing the architecture of the system within the org env/cloud/infra is often wrong by LLMs (for now).
3. Debugging when things go wrong. What to log, how to log it, and how to ensure not logging much or logging sensitive data.
4. Guide junior engineers, so they are not just accepting what LLMs are spiting.
by Oras - "Coding" has been a solved problem for a couple of decades now, in my opinion. If what you're after is producing a large amount of code while paying very little, that was always an option. The results were, as businesses who went down this route discovered, not satisfactory. Now LLMs can do this even cheaper and faster. But was this the problem? Is this the magic that was missing to move us forward?
I don't know the future and can't say if you're wrong or right. But I do wonder what "more code, faster" is meant to address exactly.
In my point of view, it depends how you describe your role. If you're a "coder" then yes, you can't compete with machines. I do have to tell you that we're in a bubble and probably in the shrinking phase of an economic cycle so it's all difficult now but you can't predict the future from this temporary phase.
by scorpioxy - "I have been an engineer for years. At this point, I do not see much value in sitting alone and building more projects just to prove that I can build software."
There is one massive thing positive about being independent: your code stays unique to you. If any AI is training off you (especially by stealth,) then it is making your solutions commodities, right?
I am building an RSS reader that I like a lot. But anyone that builds one after me, and especially if they use the AIs that I used, I presume will get there so much more quickly. If I have shared freely with the LLM, then from there it's open to anyone indirectly whether it is OSS or not. Also, the reader is an HTML page - as soon as it is public, anyone can get it.
So the playing field is being leveled for software, it's worthwhile thinking about new uses for software. For example, ways to tip writers and solving the ever present "micropayments" conundrum. Things can atrophy sure unless you look for new problems, new frictions and ways to improve life. Local-first Fediverse is a huge opportunity and enabling safe whistle-blowing while minimizing noise. Enable bravery, but not too much.
by adrianwaj