Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxdo | Hacker News Reader

The question formed wrong . They killed entire industries. I feel like they are at inflection point where they hired fde , but for now they try to solve fancy problems to do not visually scare their customers .

Yet picture is very sad , industries affected to the point that majority of the companies asking about their existence:

1) software dev tools all IDE , developer analytics tools eg jellyfish etc . Dead . On the same note : warp.dev that raised $80m a year ago as an ai terminal… can barely explain why do they exist now.

Visual workflow editors . Older ones and even n8n. There were literally 1000 companies that were doing small deployments. Why do you need it now ? A year ago half of the Internet was booming about these tools .

Any data visualization tools . Gone .

Data integration tools all kind of crm to crm to erp to something else . Solved problem

And you can go on and on . I would probably not exaggerate if I’d say that millions of businesses are heavily affected by, from tiny one to adobe .

View on HN

Yeah I think people just don't quite understand what's happening yet.

There's no reason for OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/etc to start other software businesses because "LLMs" will be the only software that anybody will ever pay for.

Why would you have a different "app" to do something when you can just do it all in Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT? We'll be there soon enough.

Because selling access to models will not be a good business. But they can form a cartel and keep frontier models to themselves. This will also prevent distillations.

>Because selling access to models will not be a good business

Let me go on a tangent to make a point. For some countries if you want a US Visa Consulate appt today they only open 3 months out and are booked constantly. They block you for 10mins on the 5th refresh.

It’s well known on crrtain communities that the only way to get one is with an ai agent that can patiently work around this and jump on the bookings with perfect timing or refresh within the bounds of the detection to nab a cancellation opening.

So we’re starting to head into a world where every single person needs an ai subscription just to deal with bureaucracy.

It’s a fucking fantastic business and i don’t understand how you could suggest it’s not good business.

> every single person needs an ai subscription just to deal with bureaucracy.

If everyone uses an AI agent as you suggest, the appointment schedule will be bottlenecked just the same as if everyone only used a web browser. Using AI won’t achieve the goal of everyone getting an appointment. So AI won’t actually be useful here if everyone uses it.

Yes but it’s an arms race. You either give up or you use ai to compete.

The arms themselves are open source and nearly free to operate.

The same goes for electricity. The utility is extremely useful, but it's a utility and is priced as such.

Access to models will trend towards zero, nobody has a moat, open weight models already exist, and inference is getting cheaper all the time.

Ultimately the value will be in the data.

We're in a window here where the data is silo'd and we can use agents to vibe code / glue it all together and create traditional apps that people will still use, but I think that window is narrow.

Eventually today's LLM providers will incorporate direct access to more data sources, and the data won't be silo'd for them - it'll all be available. And instead of third parties vibe-coding apps, the LLM companys' web UIs will become the apps that link everything together directly.

> Ultimately the value will be in the data.

And the compute.

Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI(whatever is it called these days) are sitting on mountains of compute.

Yes, local and open-weight models will continue improving, and they'll be good enough for an increasing number of tasks. But there's a difference between making yesterday's capabilities cheap and pushing the frontier forward.

The most capable models will likely continue to demand enormous compute resources, both for training and inference.

And the pricing is already there - we're charged for token usage, not model access. Draft an email, summarize a paper - basically free. But the "big stuff" will require Frontier-models with Frontier-level of compute.

OpenAI spent something like tens of millions on "solving" a Millenium Prize math model. And there will always be another problem worth throwing massive amounts of compute at, whether it's mathematics, scientific discovery, engineering, etc.

> OpenAI spent something like tens of millions on "solving" a Millenium Prize math model.

I keep wondering if throwing tens of millions at human mathematicians would have gotten similar results.

That is hard to answer.

But the speed and acceleration has the biggest impact on humanity

It's not even clear that access to data is that important. It's important for LLMs, but somehow we manage to turn babies into intelligent adults without them reading more than a few hundred books - for some, no books at all. Whatever is the breakthrough after LLMs likely won't need lots of data.

Existing is a constant stream of ultra-high fidelity data. A book contains very little data compared to a stroll to the market, which contains so much data your mind is specialized in blocking most of it out so you don't get overloaded.

How much value per type of data?

> Why would you have a different "app" to do something when you can just do it all in Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT? We'll be there soon enough.

At least from the engineering perspective, the app has a massive advantage: determinism. If I write something in Python or Java or whatever, it has set inputs and outputs and those can be proven to accomplish a computational task because they are working in a logical system.

If I ask an LLM to do that same task, it has inputs and outputs, but the logic isn't anywhere nearly as defined. There will be a chance, no matter how small, that will not act in a way that makes any sort of logical sense given the constraints of the task it was meant to accomplish.

When you combine that with the fact that deterministic applications are far cheaper to run, at least for the foreseeable future, the app wins.

Yeah I think efficiency is still a counterargument to the model doing everything.

If I need to process a million items it still wouldn't make sense to feed them directly to the model and burn a crazy amount of tokens

Of course the model can produce code to process them on the fly but if its a repeated task why would I want that to be re-created every time, especially if I've already tested/validated it

You're right but the trick LLM-backed tools have is that they can just write traditional code on the fly.

There are usability and performance problems right now which is why we have this interregnum. But as these systems evolve, the tools can offload "expensive" operations to traditional compute by writing the glue code on demand, and persist the code for future use (so regenerating it won't be required again later) when the user confirms it's doing what it's supposed to do. You can A/B test it in real time and ask the user to pick the "better" result.

Same is true for e.g. GUI elements, widgets, etc. Write it the first time, have your user verify it, persist it, retrieve it.

And maybe you have a couple of people in your org who work through the process of generating a bespoke app that processes data with a GUI optimized for whatever they're doing, but it's all mediated directly through your vendor. The users run through the process all in the web UI of whatever LLM vendor the org's data is silo'd with, the output is a mix of traditional computation and LLM contexts that anybody can maintain via asking the tool to change itself.

> they can just write traditional code on the fly

this is a point that i think is missed on many people (myself included earlier in the year). Sure, the LLM is non-deterministic but it can write code that is not and test cases to verify it. Then, once verified correct, it can use what it wrote to perform the task in a deterministic way. Even though the LLM is still non-deterministic all it has to get right is the arguments to the software which is much easier than the full logic of the task. That's very powerful.

I've seen this first hand when asking AI to do non-trivial analysis over a couple of spreadsheets and then also a database. It writes python to do this, tests it with sample data, and then calls the python it creates to do the processing on the actual data.

> I've seen this first hand when asking AI to do non-trivial analysis over a couple of spreadsheets and then also a database. It writes python to do this, tests it with sample data, and then calls the python it creates to do the processing on the actual data.

How is this different from what we’re all doing in software development right now? It’s just we review and make the code more robust, and build it into more complex systems. If you have repeated workflows, it would be idiotic to just throw away the code that was generated by the LLM instead of properly building a system. Sure, sometimes you have a one-time use-case. Most non-technical people do. But most technical people are in the business of building systems these days.

I do not mean to be mean, but how had you missed this? The models have been writing python to accomplish tasks forever (meaning a couple of years at least).

The models using code/scripts in the background is not new.

Even if the process of creating software was 100% cost-free and bug-free (which we know isn't true, even the most efficient LLMs actively burn tokens and cost you money) - pre-built software still has the advantage of being opinionated and having features I never thought to ask about.

I might have the general desire to play a video game with my friend where we shoot WW2 like guns together. I'm willing to bet that a video game company with artists, game designers, historians, etc. is better able to articulate that into existence than I can. Especially given I might not be willing to spend the time to do that...

Yes, LLM UX is still very primitive. With code harnesses and build tools still distinct from general chat interfaces.

It will all be one integrated UX soon, as the LLM UX best practices are discovered.

But you just ask the LLM to produce a new well-tested artifact to perform those tasks for you, then let it call them and orchestrate them as needed. IT folk have long been creating quality of life scrips for themselves to automate tasks, the LLMs make this even easier. So we get more determinism for cheaper, if done correctly.

If we reach AGI, non determinism will not be a problem. In fact, it will be an asset. Processes will quickly evolve.

If we reach AGI, nothing will be a problem anymore because it's going to be the end for us.

ASI*

We have had AGI for years now.

No we haven't. We don't have any intelligence at all with LLMs.

Lol.

Yes, I still hear software development coworkers who want to replace all our tested, deterministic software with non-deterministic, high latency, much more expensive LLM based systems.

Have the LLMs generate even more deterministic software to solve well defined needs and keep the LLMs for solving higher level problems using the deterministic software's outputs as inputs.

A chat window that takes multiple seconds to respond and behaves non-determinstically is a pretty bad paradigm for most computer tasks. It just happens to work for software development in particular.

Twitter consensus now is more like LLMs will be entirely commoditized, apps & features will be cheap, and only systems of record will have lasting value.

A chat window that takes multiple seconds to respond, versus your buddy Guy who just went out on lunch.

Non-deterministic behavior from your chatbot, like how the visual design artist's client keeps sending back and forth emails asking for it to "pop" more

> A chat window that takes multiple seconds to respond, versus your buddy Guy who just went out on lunch.

why are you comparing to your buddy? we're talking about software products?

Have you tried chatjimmy? It operates at the speed of thought. Imagine this with one of the recent frontier AI. AI that operates faster than you can express your thoughts seems like a foregone conclusion eventually but may not make sense right now as they try to reach the limit of what they can make in a model.

[1]:https://chatjimmy.ai/

"speed of thought" is wildly underselling how fast chatjimmy is. The speeds claimed by system one decision models are slow in comparison to chatjimmy, which produces actual text.

Though at this time it produces pretty bad text which is hardly useful for anything.

you use the chat window to make the software which is deterministic and can be tested. Then the chat window uses that software to do the analytics or whatever else you need. Op is correct.

99.999999% of people have no interest in making software, they just want to do whatever they need to with minimal hassle. You may as well say restaurants are going out of business because microwaves exist.

Even the people making software barely want to make software honestly, but you gotta make that daily bread somehow and sometimes it's kinda cool I guess? But like people overestimate the desire of the average person to be their own software maintainer, most people consume, not produce, regardless of ease and trying to turn everyone into a producer is... kind of the opposite of where society has been going for a very long time.

There are areas of expertise or experience, where I know, that no one else has actually made the right tool for me, so I have to make it myself, and I like being able to do it myself. One is a good tool for learning the vocabulary of Mandarin. I just have very specific ideas how it should work and look and I don't think there is any other tool, that does it like my personal tool. I like such projects, but I think even among developers, the percentage of devs thinking like this is decreasing, as there are fewer and fewer people in this profession, who are in it because they actually love developing things, compared to more and more who do it for the money.

You ask the chat window to build a new tool or visualization or simulation or data editing tool for you...and it spins for a few seconds or 10s of seconds then presents it to you, ready to be re-used and designed to interact with both you directly and the AI itself.

That's where we're heading.

>re-used

Perhaps even by other people, and over time, continuously improving as we discover new use cases or that things are more complicated than they seemed on the first pass. Like... regular software, and not "do[ing] it all in Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT"

Still shocked that people use LLMs as automation for some things that should be done with software.

“Claude deploy this to dev”

“Claude build me a tool that allows me to deploy to dev with a single click / command from CLI”

Orders of magnitude less expensive for the latter than the former. The former usually costs a few cents and the latter maybe a one time cost of 40 cents and then free forever afterwards.

> deploy to dev

You're thinking like a developer that needs to build and deploy software for other people to use, rather than as a user that wants to do something.

“Claude make this thingy run on our test thingy so I can take one final look before I let our users access it. And make a button for it so I don’t have to ask you again.”

> make this thingy run on our test thingy

You're still thinking like a dev following traditional dev processes.

More like: "Claude do X".

"Claude, read all my emails and make an app that satisfies my customers."

"Claude, find an underserved niche of SaaS software where people aren't yet interested in using AI; generate a customer base through social engineering; and serve that customer base an app that they want. Here's my bank routing number."

"Claude do business."

"Claude build a nuclear reactor."

Your argument is thought-terminating. There's no way forward in this discussion if you believe that AI is capable of literally anything, and there's also no point in having a discussion in the first place if that's true because we're seconds away from singularity.

You may have lost track of the context of this thread. Anyway have a good one.

Claude deploy to dev will use abstractions to do it with software , even more it will deploy you a trigger to do it automatically . Otherwise . Nothing wrong of doing it with voice / text request vs navigating to some ugly Jenkins , or half dead github actions etc .

> Claude deploy to dev will use abstractions to do it with software , even more it will deploy you a trigger to do it automatically

Who’s building the system that does that? Do you believe every request that we make - in every context that we make it - Claude will be able to intuit whether it’s something we only want to do once and is then just throw-away, or do it multiple times so a system should be built to facilitate that?

Even if Claude is somehow clairvoyant enough to know that, it still costs money to interpret my request in the first place. Why would I spend 5 cents to do something I could do for free? Maybe once, but across the day I’m doing hundreds or thousands of things and the money adds up. I’d rather have that money in my salary rather than having my employer pay for an AI subscription.

What’s the advantage of doing these things through a chat interface, aside from lining VC pockets? Vs clicking a button or invoking a CLI command? Just for the aesthetic of relinquishing control?

> Nothing wrong of doing it with voice / text request vs navigating to some ugly Jenkins , or half dead github actions etc .

I’ve automated away most of my daily browser activity using LLMs to generate tools. It’s become a lot easier recently. I do almost everything from a terminal, which makes it incredibly easy to e.g. pipe content into files for my LLMs to work with, like errors and stack traces. I understand some people have given access to their entire desktop to LLMs but that seems very solution-specific and I don’t want to commit days or even weeks getting my system to work with one piece of AI software just for another one to win the battle in the next few months. Too much churn. Text and terminal are evergreen.

What kind of browsing activities did you automate away?

If I think about what I do, like reading HN, reading some subreddits, watching series, asking LLMs things, ... I don't see how any of it can be usefully automated away, in such a way that it achieves an equivalent result.

And it becomes determinist - which is a huge bonus

Yeah for me the accelerator has been using LLMs to build engines, not apps. Build something that outlasts the LLM, or could even be trivially used by a local LLM.

I'm under no illusion that we'll have cheap LLM access for much longer so I'm hedging my bets.

So at the end of the day you still need an app… and maybe instead of spending tokens every time you want an app you just use a prebuilt one… :surprised-pikachu:

Depends.

If you just need a narrow subset of the functionality for now, might be cheaper in tokens to just vibe it than the attentional cost of searching for just the right software...let alone paying for it.

Why people bringing token prices ? With my Claude subscription I can do everything from building apps every day to doing room planning and science researches , for a fixed price. Software is not cheaper . Before you could argue oh but it’s a subsidy etc , in reality you can do same things with Chinese models just half a year away for also cost of coffee . It’s cheaper now than sales tax you pay for your saas

> Why people bringing token prices ?

Enterprises needs to pay for API, they cannot use subs (for various reasons). In work environment it’s a higher chance you will pay raw token prices than have a sub.

My example is not a narrow functionalist it’s a complex multi level problem that need several apps .

Sure , I’ll share you my example I was doing home planning from a shitty plan I had from previous owner . Claude created that with a fraction on my quotas . Eg ~1 dollar . It converted a shitty drawing into 3d , modified the room I wanted , created a few options of visuals, and shopping list from my local store with budgets . Oh and yes it create a local html page for my problem it even created a name nook, not sure why .

With regular software I need an entire package of apps, a specially trained people , and a budget of at least $10k for the same service . Will my services be such a commodity very soon , sure .

Do I want to pay $10k now for manual software and people . Not really , what is the point ? Same way as accountant will not pay one day for the software , I will not pay adobe and designer today .

I think the fact that you vibe code your home explains that we have fundamentally different worldviews and aren't gonna agree on anything here

NO, you build a new one every time, or else you get the hose again.

A chat window that will deploy you perfect ui for any problem you have based on your personal taste , that is funny enough is not that different yet. And yes , that ui will open in milliseconds , and it will be deterministic when needed and agentic and smart when not . This is already happening on a small scale with Hermes . With models getting smarter it will Only get better

Nobody really paid that much for software before LLMs, most of the web was moving to a subscription model with API pricing anyways.

I’m seeing two types of software:

  - stuff that’s easily replicable that I can tailor to my use-case (e.g. I have an alternative to git add -p that I generated that I find much more ergonomic)
  - stuff that’s a giant boondoggle to replicate because there are so many edge cases and considerations that it takes years of iterations to arrive at something stable

Am I really going to create an iTerm2 alternative? What the hell would I want out of an alternative?

Am I really going to create a git alternative? Who in the right mind would take the time to even learn it?

And also, no, Claude isn’t going to replace git. Deterministic compute still has a place in software, nondeterministic compute isn’t going to take over just because the UI is more pleasant for nontechnical folks.

> Am I really going to create an iTerm2 alternative

Well, If you're an iTerm2 user still after about the 1st hour of setting up a new macbook then you probably don't have need for the features that customizing a terminal to your own needs brings.

Claude will totally be used to build a tool to replace git for specific groups of users. There are alternatives popping up left and right, there was one that was announced by Anthropic itself last week.

Clause doesn't need to be deterministic when you can use it to generate software that is deterministic in its output.

> you probably don't have need for the features that customizing a terminal to your own needs brings

I mean this is my point in a nutshell. Why do I even open a chat window if I already have a tool that does what I want it to do.

git is also an archive and you can't just vibe archival because the whole point is knowing what you got in there, and keeping it there "forever"

> stuff that’s a giant boondoggle to replicate because there are so many edge cases and considerations that it takes years of iterations to arrive at something stable.

The catch here though is that you don't need to replicate all of the giant boondoggle with your vibe coded solution.

For eg. Pagerduty does not handle payments in our country "properly". So we are replacing it. Pagerduty likely does a gazillion things but we only care about a tiny subset of that. And that we can build with an agent now.

And there am talking about Pagerduty that's already a rather narrowly focused SaaS product. If you consider the SAPs and the various ERPs and billing systems etc. out there they are much much more vulnerable since most firms just use a tiny tiny fraction of these giant behemoth software.

You have a valid use-case. The software literally doesn’t work for you.

My point is that why would I go through the effort of replicating software that already works. Especially if you’re focused / concerned about more important things. Let’s not pretend LLM generation of software is 0 effort / 0 cost.

So for every piece of paid software (that works), the question now becomes whether the price is less than your effort and cost to replace it.

And for every piece of free software, the question becomes whether your modification saves you enough time in the long run: https://xkcd.com/1205/

Anthropic is actually replacing git and will bundle it into Claude code for you. What is so complex about iterm ? And why do you need iterm it’s just a visual trend nowadays, on how to run your agent. Iterm is literally single function to launch Claude code or codex .

Cursor too.

They're replacing git? What does that mean?

If they're trying to wrap the CLI in natural language, that sounds like a terrible idea, like trying to wrap SQL or regex in natural language: it's been tried before, but when it comes down to it you need to understand the system you're interacting with it in order to make coherent requests from it. Any natural language system for version control probably just starts off simple and then slowly becomes more complex as users have more complex requirements for their versioning, and suddenly you're reinventing the whole syntax but with a more ambiguous interface. There's a reason that Git is more than just "git commit".

https://www.anthropic.com/research/redesigning-source-contro...

This statement:

> Anthropic is actually replacing git and will bundle it into Claude code for you.

is a bit of a misrepresentation of what your link talks about. Anthropic developed a highly opinionated source control system specifically tailored to their monorepo system and their engineering workflows. Pretty much every bigcorp has done the same.

If one of my engineers came to me tomorrow and said that we should roll our own source control system to speed up development I’d laugh and say good joke bud.

Because you want someone that is (legally) responsible for what the software does and can guarantee some level of correctness to you.

Or, and hear me out here, maybe throwing VC money behind slightly fancy terminals and workflow editors was always destined to be a risky move?

I heard some chatter about Warp some six months ago and decided to give it a try. Blew my mind that a terminal with an LLM wrapper side-panel raised $80M

I'm sure there's some impressive stuff in there that the warp team built but also the second my own _terminal_ tried to get me to subscribe to a monthly plan I uninstalled that shit so fast.

This is the economy that's inevitable when investment is driven by Boomer retirement finds and not working consumers. Desperate workers with no leverage just have to accept the crap decisions leadership makes about what to make and what to use. At some point, you have to decide if you want sanity or "stable returns" (rent-seeking on the young, regardless of the hare-brained decisions up top).

> Visual workflow editors

That overhyped thing that never did anything well and everybody that used them regretted it later? Yeah, hyped things tend to die once the money used to hype them ends.

> Any data visualization tools

Microsoft killed them with anticompetitive practices. It helps that every single one of them tried very hard to kill themselves by being as hostile as possible.

> Data integration tools all kind of crm to crm to erp to something else

Yep, everybody writes those in Python nowadays. Apache is a great market killer, the best kind of market killer.

Data visualization is such a dead end product. Wow lots of pretty charts, can you actually interpret the data and make an informed decision? Any idiot can throw shit into Excel and make charts and pivot tables. An AI that can not only interpret the data but also offer advice on how one should react is way more valuable.

Of course you shouldn't just rely on AI that's consumed every MBA book to give you all of your business advice. Sometimes the textbook response is not always the best response.

Jupyter notebooks were the canonical solution to data visualization problems if you needed more than Excel, but required training in understanding Python or similar high level programming language.

Now with LLMs that's all solved.

> software dev tools all IDE. Dead.

IDEs will be moot when I die. Even with tests and code gen, I still debug and verify code before shipping to QA.

This is a wild take.

I do not even use the IDE at this point.

I read the merge request after validation, testing, then only for verification before shipping.

> They killed entire industries. I feel like they are at inflection point

The perpetual state of being in the inflection point upon which entire industries are just... killed.

Huh? First of all, agents use software tools. They aren't likely to go away. It is still infinitely better to have deterministic programs for a lot of tasks whether the user is a human or an LLM. Sure, some tools like human centric IDEs will be deemphasized but those companies will build agent managers and harnesses instead.

Nerds also underestimate how how social people are. I can guarantee you there are whole segments of the economy that will not be fully decimated solely because they don't actually give a shit if an AI can do the job because the job is 99% clout and relationships.

out source to India..Gone.

service based companies yes, but product based companies have established workflows which will take some time to disrupt

Lol, "software dev tools all IDE , developer analytics tools eg jellyfish etc . Dead"

This is the most insane perspective, it's like you have now idea what is happening across the industry. In you fantasy world here, are you saying devs are just yeeting slop into production, no debugging, no profiling, no code review, just prompt to prod? Because that's not happening.

That's definitely happening lol

Maybe I should rephrase, it's not happening at any org that will be in business beyond the next couple years. Customers don't care about your software factory, they care about a product that works reliably.

> Customers don't care about your software factory, they care about a product that works reliably.

You don't think AI is capable of putting out CRUD apps into the ether that work reliably? Even my local GLM5.3-Flash is capable of doing that. These products make up a non negligible amount of the industry. Additionally reducing headcount is about to hit in the next year or so. Where are juniors gonna find jobs? Etc etc...

Rails cli could do this a decade ago, there’s no major difference here other than the number if lines dumped.

> there’s no major difference here

Sure thing, I can see any sort of serious discussion is off the table.

> You don't think AI is capable of putting out CRUD apps into the ether that work reliably?

I know it isn't. No model is capable of programming well, let alone writing good software.

> they care about a product that works reliably.

I actually disagree here, what matters most is procurement & distribution. You can sell absolute dog water software (see: Teams[1]) and capture a market with the right procurement and distributions pipelines.

The sad reality IMO is that the quality of software matters much less than we (the engineers) would hope it does.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260322032609/https://www.theve...

I still believe that quality of software matters in the long term.

The issue with that belief is that it's basically impossible to falsify.

There's obviously some kind of quality floor, it's odd that folks are pretending otherwise.

Teams is dog water, but it's dog water that works.

Yeah I can use it to see and hear my coworkers and their screens and exchange text messages through a crappy editor and schedule meetings. That's really all a business needs to keep using it.

It's more that Teams is already included in a bundle of actually useful and working software in the form of Microsoft Office.

This is the entirely wrong framing.

The right framing is ecosystems.

Instead of just making claims back-and-forth, can this thread provide sources? I don't believe either of you without proof.

winrar & vlc will never be forgotten

How have these two been killed by AI?

they won't be until they are?

I personally rarely touch an IDE anymore. I talk to lots of people with the same experience. This is anecdotal, sure, but if you ask any software developer that isn't staunchly anti-ai or just living with their head in the sand, you'll probably get told something similar.

I find this very hard to believe, even though I use plenty of frontier AI in my dev process. I have to live in vscode to get things done because I still frequently need to look at the generated code and point out issues to get the AI past some problem it's stuck at.

Improve your workflow. I have 4 instances of intellij, 2 web storm, 2 Rustrover and two phpstorm open for WEEKS. Along with some vs code instance. I think I unminimized only one just today to check something: I was being super lazy and I just wanted to check git status without typing anything. I had to rebuild multiple images with new structure to mitigate php2shell; had to patch more than 15 servers etc just in last few days. Fork old other people's images and update them, add some features while at it. Bug fix old php sites not running on new php. And so on and so on...all done with 5/6 agents running in parallel. I have the IDEs open but minimized. Don't need them really...

i like reading the generated code as a code review, and then i can leave inline comments back to the ai, rather than trying to point the ai to the right lines via chat.

im already practiced at reviewing code through code review tools, so id rather do it that way than in vscode

Same here, I abandoned reviewing code in VSCode a long time ago, I rarely use it now, I do like reviewing code in github but always hated how slow and outdated it is, but I built my own solution to replace it (pyor.review), try it out and let me know if you find it useful, I see that we kinda share the same review process, hope it helps.

I rarely open the IDE. I have about a dozen agents at all times.

Spec -> Prompt -> Validate -> Test -> Merge Review -> Production -> Agents monitor production -> Alerts -> Roll back

This is true for a many of us. All my team's code is now AI written.

> This is anecdotal, sure, but if you ask any software developer that isn't staunchly anti-ai or just living with their head in the sand, you'll probably get told something similar.

No competent developer is just letting an LLM write code for them.

No one's going to come out and admit that they're just stamping LGTM on every pull request because they can't bear to review another net 2,000 lines of AI-generated code. The problem is that right now the tools we have for code review were designed for a world where code was cheap.

Invert it. Write code yourself, have AI do the code reviewing. You'll have a much better understanding of what's actually going on.

One example I'm aware of is JetBrains. For years, they seemed to have a near-monopoly, but now they're in trouble.

https://ghuntley.com/kodak/ — there's no inside information here, but the article is spot on.

Seems like a really bad article. They have a loss, but their revenue is still trending up, which suggests they are spending more money building products (perhaps with better AI tooling). That's a pretty normal thing for a healthy business to do in this landscape.

The article doesn't mention this at all. It just blindly includes that graph and than muses about the death of Jetbrains for a few paragraphs.

aynone can explain to me what is software factory?

give a list of industries killed please. that is a huge claim without any evidence provided (by you).

They're using "industry" in a very loose sense, they mean certain subsets of software development and B2B software tools.

Alright, do tell: Which subsets of the software development industry and which specific B2B tools, were "Killed" by generative AI?

Notion Mail, Mechanical Turk, Fiverr, Relay, a bunch of Salesforce, Upwork, Gitlab (~15% layoffs), Atlassian (lots of layoffs already - more product cuts coming), Stack Overflow, ...

And that's not counting AI companies "cannibalizing" their own products, like Sora video generation

Notion mail specifically wasn't killed because it got replaced by AI in its niche, moreso that the company is shifting their resources.

Wow I had no idea Mechanical Turk closed. I assumed it would be quite valuable for doing a lot of data labelling type of work that percolates into AI models.

The labs have their users as the perfect training data source now. Much better than mechanial turk.

Has Postman been killed?

You know you can just use ChatGPT to do this for you, right?

Here's one example for you:

Paid homework answers and study assistance

https://www.highereddive.com/news/chegg-layoffs-strategic-al...

> Chegg’s Q2 2026 revenue fell 51% year over year, to $51.8 million. Its disclosures identify AI competition among its business risks.

No offense but this is a bit of a weak example; Chegg got hit pretty early. No one since Chegg?

Stock photos got hit real hard by generative AI. Getty’s in chapter 11 and Shutterstock isn’t doing much better.

The translation market is also wrecked right now. Nobody needs a translator to Polish, the LLM is really good at that.

Just have a look at https://killedbyai.xyz/?

That site is AI slop with a bunch of questionable nonsense. For example, they suggest that Devin, Cognition's product, shut down. I'm not even sure where they got that information.

stackoverflow.

Is that an industry?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com