u/RenegadeMuskrat

This year of AI/LLM hype from CEOs has almost entirely been driven by vastly overstating the difficulty of coding software

For the last few decades, CEOs and non-technical individuals have believed and been told that developing software is one of the pinnacles of human intellectual achievement. That in order to learn how to code, you need to be in the upper echelon of human intelligence, and that once an AI can do that well, you have reached the singularity. This is why you continue to have companies like Stripe say we are in the singularity (they even referenced Jan 1).

But this completely falls apart if you actually understand why coding was always put up on too high a pedestal and why an LLM doing it is not even close to as difficult as you would think. LLMs are still, despite all the refutations of Altman and Amodei and Musk, pattern matchers. "Infinitely" sided weighted dice rolling in multidimensional planes. Cool for sure, but only really helpful in areas with highly predictive patterns and lower levels of ambiguity, specifically in written language (what it's been trained in the most). You know what area of written language fits that description by far the most? Coding.

Coding is just a written language. When you break it down into the possible patterns, it has far fewer permutations than, say, the English language as a whole. And then you shrink it further with a framework, and then with app/site-specific rules. And finally, by the problem space the code needs to be. By the time you get down to what an LLM has to generate, it's a fraction of the typical size of just a normal human conversation, especially when needing to generate new/novel content. But CEOs and executives viewed coding as some magic / unknowable thing. And software engineers were happy to support this narrative as it increased autonomy and pay.

But software was always much less difficult than learning another language, especially once you learn to code in one language. For many, it became trivial, but you couldn't do that with like say, learning Chinese or Japanese or Hungarian. And even prior to AI, that barrier to code was shrinking fast, with libraries and frameworks and vast libraries to do all the repeatable things. So it's no wonder that MBA Bob from Tech Co #9, who believes that because Fable 5 just generated all the code in a night for the data pages he wanted for a year from his $200k engineers, thinks it's now sentient. It doesn't matter that it isn't as good as if they did it, or exactly what he wanted, or that there may be bugs or security issues. It's "good enough". To these execs, writing this code is more impressive than being able to consistently answer simple facts and math problems, because remember, software engineering is the hardest thing humans can do.

reddit.com
u/RenegadeMuskrat — 1 day ago

I believe that AI coding is creating worse quality software for the same reason education performance is decreasing from reliance on AI

While there is a lot of evidence of tons of new vibe-coded software coming out, there continues to be, even 7 months after the big Claude code eruption, any evidence of increased software adoption and revenue from it. Perhaps the main reason is that vibe coding gets in the way of how you make good software.

Traditionally, as you are coding something, you are testing each piece along the way and thinking through how every piece will work and interact both on the front end and back end. This is where you are making hundreds and thousands of different decisions on how to build it. What ultimately comes from that process is what makes or breaks software, not the overall idea. Those are cheap.

And while you could just not vibe code it in big chunks to still have this experience, that's the only way to make it economically and pragmatically possible. Only piece-mealing each decision into prompts is more effort and more abstraction than coding it yourself. And then the cost associated with it. When taken to the extreme (everything is prompt-coded), I've yet to see a product that comes close to the quality of a high-quality non-prompt-coded software. The argument from boosters is often that there is a lot of low-quality traditionally coded software out there, which is true, but the ceiling on prompt-coded software is quite low, especially in the things that differentiate good software from bad.

And I don't believe there is a good solution to solve it. It's either cost-effective by just vibe coding large parts of the product, which leads to you not knowing what is wrong or right, and also not allowing you to make all the micro decisions along the way. Or it's overly tedious and too expensive due to the prompt coding of every single small change.

And because I don't think the industry is going to go back to mostly traditional coding, we just have to get used to worse software as a general rule.

Anyway, humans need to go through processes in steps, to think, or else they check out and atrophy. And we are seeing that in education, software, and even creative pursuits. Because when our brains can be lazy, it's a powerful drug, and it's called an "innovation".

reddit.com
u/RenegadeMuskrat — 1 month ago