Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I kind of do. Not by will, but because as a consultant i'm most of the time constrained by the tooling and environment i can use at my client's. It's hard enough to build a reliable unit test pipeline or ci/cd, so even if i can use the agents built into databricks, i don't control the harness and i cannot build the necessary guardrails needed to use agents in a mature way. It sucks and i think it will hold me back on future projects.by matthiasrsl
- I still write code myself but I do use LLM. I use them for exploring ideas, explaining things, look up syntax, look up API/reference, look up algorithms, write tests, write duplicate code, write small functions that can be reviewed easily, do code reviews, find bugs, do performance review, do complexity analysis, etc.
The LLM generated code are correct about 80% of the time. Sometimes the generated code is overly complicated, has poor performance, missing a few assumptions, etc. that you need to review it carefully. It helps to have a solid and extensive set of tests.
by ww520 - Graphics programmer who still codes by hand here. I use LLMs for search, and for rubber ducking. I would not disrespect the years I've put into this craft by outsourcing my thinking. Nor do I want to wake up in ten years and realize I have willingly made myself stupid through overuse of these tools.by jplusequalt
- Every four months or so we try getting hyped on agents for ~ a week. Up to this point the answer has always been a pretty solid "nope this sucks back to manual code." The agentically coded parts of the codebase that came from these trials are palpably more annoying than the rest. However, the current trial is going better than the last ones have (Fable 5.1 really is astonishing). On the other hand, each other trial started with a honeymoon so it's up in the air.
- It is actually pretty nice that now we can spin up an isolated copy of our whole system with one command line call- this was mandatory for letting agents run wild trying things, but mostly now it makes manual development and onboarding easier.
- Having a weird experience with this at work. We are being told to use it, but the amount of flip flopping on whether or not we can use ChatGPT or Codex or anything else has left a lot of us without any clear direction. One day it’s allowed, the next day IT security guys have blocked it. Local models are also not allowed. I’m carrying on coding everything myself, because I can’t keep changing my workflow when IT changes their mind every second day. Despite this, the directive from the CIO is that by next year 70-80% of code must be AI generated. Last I checked only 2% of the company was actually given a license for codex. So idk manby timbaboon
- That sounds hellishby sph
- It's now like coding using the socratic method. Knowing the right questions is now the hard part. And you need to know the context to ask the right questions. Yes, I'm not typing in as much code or reading as much code directly, but still figuring out how to produce a good solution.by jolt42
- The code we write here is all human-generated. There’s been an initiative to explore LLM usage. So far it’s been in a reviewer role only, as in “here’s some things I found that you could fix”, and then humans discuss each one and determine if it’s valid and how to fix it.
Also one of my domains is in microcontrollers and using specific hardware that needs bit-banging drivers written for, so it’s unlikely any LLM has enough data to write those things itself.
by mysterydip - There are so, so many. You just generally won’t hear about it here.
Where I work, I have chores than a claude subscription would knock out in minutes instead of months. But I don’t have permission to run something like that, so I don’t.
Weirdly our contractors can. They wrote it into their contracts. It’s not even fair, really.
They say they’re working on it, but some people might be pushing back.
by dd8601fn - > Weirdly our contractors can. They wrote it into their contracts. It’s not even fair, really.
Do you draw any other conclusion than that your management wants to replace you with the contractors?
by jollyllama - We still have some product development software teams at my company that have not changed at all in the last year. We develop medical products in the U.S., so it is heavily regulated and processes change very slowly. We also require reviews from our legal team, so it takes a while for any new contract or agreement to be approved.
This is temporary though; other teams are fully embracing AI in their processes, and it's really only a matter of time until all teams use it. We have C-suite instructions to promote AI adoption. AI will slowly creep into software testing, verification, and eventually the requirements management and software development itself. I'm working on some of the pilot projects.
by cowanon77 - I am working on an embedded device where AI coding has been contractually prohibited. I use it for learning about APIs and modern tools, but all of the code comes from my brain. The reason is that the issue of AI copyrights has not been resolved, and this product will be sold to parts of the government that care.
That said, their stance has been wavering, given the apparent inevitability that AI-washing of copyrighted works will be rubber stamped. As you say, damn near everyone has now embraced AI and infected their products with their output. The economic shock if this practice was found illegal would crater the stock market, so of course it will be made legal (at least for the big US models whose corps have been spending their lobbying dollars wisely).
Once the outcome becomes sufficiently clear, I expect the tide will turn, and I am not entirely sad about it. I would like to give them a spin for creating one-off tools, running security audits, tackling certain refactoring, analyze log files, and perform other adjacent tasks. But if I have my way, I will never delegate the core tasks of architecture, design, and development.
I can only say that because I am operating as an independent contractor, so I have a little agency to decide what I do.
by voakbasda - That seems like folly, since some courts somewhere will surely, at some point, find these LLMs to be in (IMO, fairly obvious) violation of copyright and/or license terms. Especially when it’s geopolitically expedient. Especially as the rage over AI builds in the general populace.
Congrats! Now your product can’t be sold in X arbitrary countries. Or it’s auto-GPL licensed and you’re forced to release your code.
by archagon - I’ve learned for myself that I need to write code just to keep my brain in shape - same as going to the gym to be healthy.
Even though agents are building all of my code now, I’m starting every morning with a LeetCode problem. There is no practical use, but it make me feel good and sharp for the rest of the day.
For anyone coping with AI I suggest to give it a try, and stick to it for some time, just like with a gym.
by andreybaskov - I used to be a baker and baked all sort of intricate breads and sweets.
Now a machine does it for me.
To stay in shape every morning I bake a single loaf.
by thefz - >I’m starting every morning with a LeetCode problem.
Keeping with your example, this is the equivalent of going to the gym just to do a single set on the bench press.
Your brain is still atrophying.
by jplusequalt - Smart. I've been thinking about doing the same.
I regret not doing this 10 years ago. Just ~20 minutes of leetcode practice for a decade. I could have landed so much better gigs. :-/
by kilroy123 - I think this is a really good idea; I usually do this for about a month until I tell myself my time is better spent building or playing something that I don't have to convince myself that I truly enjoy.by gottagocode
- I've settled on writing my own code for about 30-60 minutes per day. One benefit I've noticed is that it helps me be a bit more critical and questioning of decisions made in the code as compared to just doing code review of the LLM's output. I think this ends up being a nice balance.by mattm
- Agreed, there's a couple of bad behavioral shifts I noted for me when doing agentic coding:
- Doing too much at the same time, it is super exhausting, and I get nervous and stressed
- Sycophancy makes me overestimate myself
- When my stress meets external pressure, quality goes down. The little voice of 'surely the AI got it right' can lead to defects and code quality going down.
Except for doing some manual coding, I've started doing a couple of other things that are probably just healthy regardless of using AI heavily in day to day life:
- Do literally nothing for at least half an hour. Read something written by humans, even better if it is fiction.
- Do something that makes you feel stupid. And don't use AI to help you through it. (That could be Leetcode, but for me it is learning about statistics)
- Slow down when you feel like things are moving too fast. By far the hardest thing, but the moment I realize I'm trying to rush for a deadline, I'm going out for a walk. Realistically, I'm moving 3-8x faster than before, this little delay is nothing, and keeps me sane and quality on a good level.
by arw0n - I don't touch LLMs for any purpose (when I can help it, they are frequently shoved in your face regardless); and up until recently was doing just fine. I was fired for this stance, not for performance reasons (officially stated that there was no concern with my output), only for political reasons (insubordination, refusing to use LLMs to do my work for me).
I have been seeing fewer and fewer job ads that ask for/require LLM use over the last couple of months, so I feel like the tide may be turning in our direction; but I am starting to feel the stress. This is the first time I have considered that I might have been "wrong" taking an absolutist stance against LLMs, though I think that's just the unemployment wearing me down.
by vermilingua - Seeing as how LLMs objectively increase performance when used correctly, I'd support the company's decision to let you go for specifically performance reasons. I'm not saying you should be all in on LLMs end to end, but there are individual processes in every workflow that can be enhanced by the tool. If you find those, you will perform better than you could without LLMs, no question.
- I mean, even outside the context, you ought to be fired for not doing what your employer is telling you to do. Being fired for insubordination is not really "political"; it's the epitome of a performance reason. You're literally refusing to do your job. Your performance in this regard is as bad as it can get.
A political reason would be something like, your manager was threatened by your capabilities and set you up for unfair evaluations, etc. But you just straight up told the people paying you that you won't do what they're paying you to do lol. DEFINITELY make sure you work on your spin on this for future interviews, because knowing you were confidentially disobeying direct instructions is an immediate "pass" for me and anyone with any sense who may be interviewing you.
>This is the first time I have considered that I might have been "wrong" taking an absolutist stance against LLMs, though I think that's just the unemployment wearing me down.
If you think LLMs are a fad that will just go away if you wait long enough, then you need to just remove yourself from this industry. They're not going away, for better or worse, and this kind of work is fundamentally changing. To be direct: you ARE wrong in taking this absolutist stance. It's profoundly naive to have done what you've done, and I hope, for your own sake, that you plan for your future accordingly.
If you have some moral issue with LLMs, then you probably need to just plan on pivoting your career. But if you're just stuck on some weird sense of pride for your "craft," then you need to take a step back and really try to appreciate what the reality of your career means to the people willing to pay you for work.
by nater5000 - I'm in a similar position. Our CEO who went full AI psychosis right when OpenClaw first came out. Directive from the top was to "use AI for everything" with no real regard for if it helped productivity, service delivery, or quality of output. That was very quickly reigned back in when they saw the bill. Multiple people using tens of thousands of dollars of tokens in a week, with no demonstrable value.
I'm in two minds on how best to handle these kind of, "but you have to use an LLM" issues. In my heart I'm like you; they hired me to do a job. If I'm doing the job at the rate and quality expected, why should they care if I use an LLM, my brain, or randomly throw mud at the keyboard until something magically works? The practical side of me says, "I like a roof over my head" so if they mandate I have to use an LLM then I'll do it as long as they take responsibility for any negative impact from that decision.
by ropetin - I don't think the tide has turned, it's just being assumed that you use them now.by icedchai
- Seems to me you at least have to try using them, so you can make a coherent case why you work just as well or better without them.by csbrooks
- Regardless of if a new tool is useful or not, if it’s being pushed internally then embrace it.
If it’s not useful now you have authority on why. And if it’s not is useful then you are better at your job.
by cracell - Being unwilling to change or changing too much are both equally going to get you fired. I’m the later so I feel your pain. At companies you have to turn your brain off and bahhh with the sheep.by hebetude
- As a fellow contrarian, I applaud your resolve. I was constructively dismissed for refusing the COVID vax a few years ago. But I think in this case where there was no concern about output, it would be better for you to just pretend to use it. Then you would soon become the most/only knowledgeable dev, be able to leverage that into promotions or new jobs, etc. I know it's distasteful to pretend to believe what you don't believe, but this might be a serious enough matter to justify it.
I went through interviews recently; I told everyone what I think they wanted to hear about my AI usage based on their demeanor; I got a new job; I pretend to use AI at this new job. Either we're right and AI mandates get walked back, so we're in a good spot, or we're wrong and we need to hold onto our jobs for dear life.
by eudamoniac