YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Yeah I feel this. My strongest passion in computing is simply learning how the machine and OS work. The code I would write would usually be experiments, not projects or tools.

I'm less pessimistic than the author though. There is always room for people who know what they are talking about. Take a deep breath.

Yep it’s pretty depressing all around. Even when the truth is revealed about the output of an Llm (not quality, full of errors, made up details, nonsense code, etc), people are still claiming it as a better way of working because they had a chat with it. There is very little room for anyone not interested in slop.

I was recently replaced by a young developer and the only thing that keeps me smiling is that they still haven’t fixed the part of the application I raised concerns about (because the young dev decided to write on a fresh non-compatible stack even after my warnings). I hope eventually it leads to their own loss of career since that’s what they did to me. All of that to say that Llms have made people into over confident morons.

This is the kind of person for whom AI is making the most negative change. I feel sad for them. For me, I love this new world. I never took pleasure in craftsmanship or perfectionism, I just want things to work and then iterate on it with as little effort as possible.

I think programmers are frustrated in part because the code used to be our place to do our thinking, but now LLMs just buzz through the file changing thousands of lines and we can't keep up.

It's still valuable to deeply understand parts of a program, but we don't have any tooling that helps us do that. We just have to raw-dog it by thinking really really hard and remembering how all the code connects together.

I want a tool that gives programmers a place to record their thoughts. Developers need a place to draw and write, and also interleave blocks of code that automatically update to match the actual state of the code.

The closest thing I know to this is org-babel, part of Emacs, which allows you to push code blocks out of an org file into an actual source files, or pull them in from actual source files. This is mostly done manually by invoking functions called `tangle` and `detangle`.

I intend to investigate this further in Emacs, since I'm an Emacs user, but Emacs is never going to be the friendly UI we need to make this tooling common.

It's great that she takes joy in his work, and sad that economics is pushing her to focus on different details with less joy. But the same can be said for a horse groom who loves her work being pushed to transition into a mechanic. Change sucks, but less than petrification.

I commiserated so much with this post. I feel like I got out of software at just the right time - folks like me that have an inherent need to understand the lower level details feel like this agentic coding world, where there is simply not enough time to even read the code, let alone understand it, is hell.

I left software and went into violin making and I couldn't be happier (though of course I'm extremely fortunate to have saved up enough in my software career to comfortably make the transition). In violin making a tenth of a millimeter is considered a lot and we endlessly stress over details like the corner shape and the f-holes. And while some of this nitpicking is certainly excessive, it serves more as proof to show that we're extremely careful with the details so that stuff that really matter, like tonal quality and playability, will also get enough detailed focus.

I think part of the grief is losing the way we learned to do something we loved. Most people care about what software does, not how we made it. The hard part is accepting that what makes the job satisfying for us isn’t always what makes the result useful to others.

I think understanding the details is still important. However, it moves toward the more central parts of the application, where the risk is higher and agentic workflows can’t be pushed as far. I think the author may benefit from specializing in those parts of the system where unattended agentic work is still too risky.

Wrote a post some time ago on how we'd be helped by segmenting and ranking the domains of our systems so we can be deliberate about where we stop short of full automation: https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/blog/cost-of-cognitive-debt.html

I think that, with the amount of vibecoded code of mediocre quality being produced, there will start to be a demand for "hand-made" software that someone took time to make as delightful as possible to use.

I'll introduce the concept of Hobbies for those who crave the details. Hours spent in the basement/attic/office/garage/workdesk sweating the details in an inefficient and un-economic way. Learning music, painting figurines, woodworking, playing with microelectronics, making sculptures, model aircraft, ham radio. Offline things, intentionally far away from the frontier that bring joy, depth of understanding, and are intentionally not going to be gobbled up by an LLM.

Yep, its incredibly painful. The entire world has lost its mind

isn't the person that did the tron typography visuals a regular here?

cool to see it come full circle and see another person thrown into the industry by the work of another forum member.

This reminds me a lot (mostly for worse) of the industrial revolution. The industrialization of textiles didn't help weavers weave better clothes. It displaced smaller, higher quality output with dramatically less varied, lower quality output in much greater quantities, more cheaply. It also dramatically undermined the relative autonomy of weavers and the control they exerted over the structure and details of their own workdays.

What I think we're likely to witness here, or at least what AI investors ultimately are hoping to see happen, is the displacement of code as we know it (often already sorely lacking in quality and craft) not by more of the same varieties of code, but a massive profusion of shittier, more homogenous code. It won't have to win by being better; it'll be able to do that by being cheaper alone. And we're frankly kidding ourselves if we think that doesn't mean a profound deskilling and potentially deprofessionalization across the whole class.

> I first became familiar with computing when I saw the history scene in Tron: Legacy

Thanks for making me feel old

> If anyone can point an LLM at slow code and it automatically finds a hot loop and uses a trick it found somewhere on the 'net to vectorize it, there is little point in hiring someone with a focus on that.

LLMs are not very good at performance issues unless you walk into it with a clear idea of the likely root cause and the bigger picture regarding actual hardware and desired customer experiences.

"Please make the code go faster"

vs

"I am noticing what appears to be contention between threads under workload A, B & C, but not with workload D".

These are completely different universes of capability and outcomes.

Even if an LLM can fight its way to the answer on its own, you can achieve a specific desired result much faster and with significantly lower risk if you are genuinely an expert.

I've seen a concrete example of this recently. I profiled the client's product "the hard way" and arrived at a change to a single line of code that would eliminate a mutex issue. One of the client's developers used the LLM and wound up with a change set that touched hundreds of files, but otherwise achieved approximately the same performance fix. The other developer even had my hint that it was a single file change and couldn't figure out how to do this despite prompting a leading edge model regarding this exact possibility over and over.

Taste and aesthetics apply to absolutely everything. Not just UI/UX design. Perhaps it is even more important that we care about the things that are invisible to the customer. It is certainly easier to forget about them or treat them like they don't matter as much.

You explained exactly the person that I am as well. Same motivation, same inability to use stuff I don't fully understand, same way of learning things, same feeling of emptyiness after LLMs appeared. It's wild, and I do not have an answer either. I just try to adopt and use the agent as some form of new processor for logic. And invent my own language around it for the logic harness to jail and align it properly, which is the only interesting thing right now to me as it touches fundamental principles of logic, information theory, computer science - but everything else, like writing compilers for regular problems, writing programs, writing code, are all dead uninteresting to me now, even though I exactly know that other people struggle to get complex stuff out of LLMs (like seeing this Theo spending half a million dollar in tokens on a TypeScript compiler that I could build in like a month for 1/1000 of the price), but this doesn't give me as much really to attack it - and the reason is, because once I solve it and publish it, people can just steal the ideas, the energy that went into it (all the thousands of micro decisions), this was not possible before on the same scale and needed the same brain power. This inbalance pretty much makes it impossible to me to release anything anymore as open-source.

This resonates with me. Hard.

I'm lucky though - as a hybrid engineer/manager, I've been able to lean away from the former and into the latter.

And I've come to notice that humans doing agentic work seem to need more emotional support per unit effort than those doing traditional engineering.

So there are opportunities there. I don't want to spend a second longer than I have to prompting machines - there is zero dopamine loop in that for me, I get more doing housework and at least that makes my wife happy - but I'm happy to support a few other humans engaged in that kind of work.

It's sad though. I used to love dreaming intricate machines into existence and then watching them come to "life", or at least actually start working. That dream seems dead for now, I hope it comes back but I won't hold my breath.

Humanity itself progressed because people specialised and one doesn't need to know about the entire supply chain of their hamburger to eat it.

A good programmer or a good knowledge worker knows how to work with lossy details.

> Hobbies still exist, but they don’t pay the bills, and increasingly retrocomputing and performance optimization are being infested by LLM fans that seek recognition rather than the experience, which sucks the fun out.

Isn't this whole post seeking...recognition? I am so confused at the metahypocrisy here. Why is it valid to want recognition for something when you do it, but not when someone who uses an LLM does it?

I'm not nearly as detail-oriented but I can certainly relate. The craft I've spent 20+ years mastering is disappearing and I'm not sure if I'll enjoy whatever replaces it. It's reassuring to know there are others who share the sorrow.

I feel that pain. My job involves a considerable amount of reverse engineering and software development, and I've always been interested in getting down to the lowest levels and figuring out what's actually going on.

LLMs are becoming remarkably competent at both of these skills. Not quite at expert levels yet but I expect it won't be long until this happens. I'm astounded at what they can do already, with the benefit of relentless, persistent effort on top of this.

How I've been using LLMs is twofold. Firstly, using chat mode to the effect of having technical documentation to converse with. Secondly, using agentic mode to develop tooling to help me with reverse engineering. This includes things like one-off scripts to analyse complex trees of structures, to modules that use the API of my own framework I've developed, to prototype how I might want to extend it. I then write the final code myself in my own style, using the LLM prototype as a rough reference.

For now I think I've got a decent balance between using the LLM as a useful timesaving tool and understanding things myself. I feel I have to draw a line around there, otherwise I'm babysitting a black box, which almost anyone can do.

> and performance optimization are being infested by LLM fans that seek recognition rather than the experience

The death of every sub culture in a sentence.

Maybe I'll build a Turing machine out of beer cans as a way to grieve my loss.

“I almost get physically ill when there is more code than I can keep in my head” resonates with me, but it is the exact reason that I enjoy working on better abstractions. Not in the “Javaesque” sense, as you call it, but in the mathematical sense.

I’m working intensively with LLMs to find out what they can and cannot do and for all the capabilities in there they remain terrible at compressing functionality into few concepts and as a result they produce incoherent (read Fred Brooks on coherent design!), failure-prone products. In other words: I expect that there will be good demand for people who refuse to let code grow beyond something they can keep in their head, even though the means by which one accomplishes this might be different than what you do now.

Hope there is some solace in there.