Hacker News Reader

Comment by exfalso | Hacker News Reader

There are ways to do it correctly. You just end up spending a lot of time conceptualizing and refining abstractions.

To me the issue is more that conceptualizing requires a certain state of mind. Before llms it was 10% hard thinking 90% implementing. Implementation was actually sort of a reward, it felt so good just being in the zone and fleshing out ideas.

Post llms I find myself walking up and down quite a lot, only doing the thinking. Now it's more like 40% thinking 60% reviewing plans/code. I haven't experienced flow state since. The thinking is fun but exhausting, the reviewing is just kind of annoying, especially as llms get into these weird failure modes. Before I could look at a bad piece of code and instantly tell what the author was thinking and why the thing doesn't work. Now I need to be a lot more careful because there is little code smell, but a lot of badly chosen abstractions.

Just exhausting...

View on HN

That's why I say, just don't use LLMs.

I think conceptualizing and refining the abstraction is the essence of the beauty of the craft and progress.

Somebody talking about researchers, I think it was Hamming, once said that there are people who just can't think without a bench full of equipment in front of them. So if you want to get good work out of them, your job as a lab director, then, is to give them that bench full of equipment and let 'em cook. I think the same thing is true of some programmers, and I think I might be one of them. We could sit around and conceptualize till we're blue in the face, but without an editor open with code in it we can't think through our conceptualizations effectively, and a chatbot is no substitute. A chatbot just adds another layer of abstraction to a process that's already thick with them, like a wall that got repainted so many times it's covered in a few millimeters of stratified goo that partially melts in the summer, and what's worse its behavior cannot be meaningfully predicted or reasoned about. Everything you think you know about how to correctly get results out of an LLM is either guesswork or folklore, and may be obsolete by Labor Day.

This also partially explains why I'm fond of Lisp. Paul Graham once said that while Lisp is a great language to work in, its real value comes as a language for thinking in.

I'm a junior and I probably spend a similar amount of time thinking vs reviewing. I rarely write code unless it's about <5 lines.

I find the instantaneous thinking easier now. I can have several ideas in mind, and have a concrete implementation made for each, making it easier to compare alternatives. Although, since each problem is alone easier to think about, I do end up handling a greater number of problems. But I expect that my total volume of thinking is likely the same as before.

Where I do certainly feel more tired is when I try to solve too many problems in parallel. If I try to do that, I end up constently dropping context. So I generally try to finish a big chunk of something before switching (usually that means getting it ready for another code-review cycle).

I do miss writing code myself. It's certainly satisfying. It's just significantly slower in most cases. I try to do it in my free time.

> I can have several ideas in mind, and have a concrete implementation made for each, making it easier to compare alternatives.

I would ask what exactly are you comparing. I don't think I've ever wrote 2 versions of code to compare between each.

I've written exploratory code. A few lines to quickly inspect the behavior of module/function because it's undocumented. If something needs tuning, I surface the parameter in the interface, hook it to an harness to plot and manually tune.

I've also written alternative implementation of some feature, that later was abandoned.

But I've never written multiple versions of the same feature at the same time. I either model it (algorithm) or sketch it (interfaces or some other flow). It's way easier to interate with those than some demo/prototype code. The latter is when we settled on a solution and wants to fine tune it.

I wonder what the rates of burnout are going to look like in a couple of years, if this is the future

Talk about driving people off a cliff

> Talk about driving people off a cliff

The mega-rich clowns firing everyone and then hiring back just those few that they realize they actually needed to keep after-the-fact are actually driving themselves right off that same cliff along with everyone else, and they don't even realize it. I bet money all this "AI" nonsense don't end up leadin' to the "Rich Guy Utopia" they think they're workin' toward. It's much more likely gonna just lead to a shittier world for everyone on Earth, rich and mega-ultra-totally-too-rich folk included. Wait'll the "AI bubble" bursts and see how much fun they have losin' zillions while pretty much everyone else lands in the "poor house" and comes lookin' to them for retribution. I suspect the guillotine is makin' a comeback sometime in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com