Resisting Cognitive Surrender (knlb.dev)

> La perfection est atteinte non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer.

> Perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.

But UI on top of a good API should be unable to cause problems; the API must prevent invalid state etc. So letting LLM’s write UI code for CRUD-apps (which is most of them…) seems fine to me.

In order to be able to enforce this hard boundary, it means that one "agent generated code" in one place, not only "can call a strictly defined set of APIs" - but, more importantly, it implements an isolated piece of functionality. Think something like: I let the AI write the dashboards, so the dashboards may be slow, crappy, incorrect, whatever - but it doesn't impact the rest of the product. However, I can't let AI write "metrics collection" because that not only impacts dashboard, but potentially impacts core product efficiency too (memory consumption, cpu, IO, etc.)

That said, the core apps are still full of AI code. I don't see a reality where hand-written code can or will be curated and sequestered. It's unenforceable, too slow, and too expensive.

It's worth remembering that, contrary to what HN acts like, software engineers are not uniformly accepting of LLMs. They are still quite controversial in the industry. Now management, on the other hand, is completely sold on the supposed benefits of LLMs. So many engineers feel forced to use them, but it's not enthusiasm on their part which drives them to that.

And if you look a the dates, the rate at which they are doing it is actually increasing...

Code is not like craftsmanship anyway. The end-user doesn't see any difference whether I use microservices or hexagonal design or react or htmx or how I structure the code or which language I use. All they see is the design and the stability. Since the average developer was terrible at design anyway, the average design output from LLMs is actually an improvement in most cases, even if it always has that generic AI generated look. Stability... was not good before AI either. We have become accustomed to SAP taking 10 seconds to load each component on the page, or Atlassian spewing error messages in your face when you click submit on a ticket. It seems that the aspects that are most valued by our end users are QA and UX, not the craftsmanship of our code.

If we don't value that though--if we don't value understanding the system and just thinking through problems as a group--then let's stop pretending and just not do code reviews. Probably nobody cares and just types "LGTM" after having their own LLM do a spot check to cover their ass.

It's really easy to push developers to stop caring. If management says "go fast fast fast, use those LLMs!", then developers can't keep up, get frustrated, stop understanding the system, and at that point they're just there to collect a paycheck before society collapses. Or, if management is making dumb decisions all the time, same thing.

Hopefully as implementing ideas takes less and less time and resources, smart people who actually care will start building things with other smart people who care.

> Once you have used a washing machine, laundering clothes by hand seems irrational, even if it might be cheaper.

Washing clothes by machine is orders of magnitude cheaper than by hand when you factor in the value of your time.

> After you have experienced streaming television, waiting to see a show at a prescribed hour seems silly, even a little undignified.

Undignified? What? Completely incoherent word slop. Good to see LLMs haven't completely taken that domain for themselves, I guess - a little hand-crafted slop now and then is a treat, I guess? Anyways, they're wrong. People still tune in to watch scheduled live events all the time.

> To resist convenience — not to own a cellphone, not to use Google

Neither of these things are a matter of convenience. A cellphone is at this point literally required to participate in a modern economy. Google is a tool that provides you with globally-retrieved information that you otherwise literally could not find on your own or without another similar tool.

I don't even disagree with the premise that convenience is a driving factor of our lives, but the justifications and conclusions drawn by this article are beyond stupid. Here's my view of it: the desire for convenience is what pushes us onwards as a species. Hunting for food is inconvenient, so we invented agriculture. Going down to the river or well for water is inconvenient, so we invented indoor plumbing. Repeat ad infinitum until we have modern civilization. There is one part the pessimistic view overlooks; that to achieve maximum convenience long-term requires more effort in the short-term. Developing the skill of programming is inconvenient in the short-term but convenient in the long-term because of the possibilities this opens up to you. This remains true even in the current LLM era, and it will remain true for as long as we are not replaced wholesale by LLMs.

The lawyers and judges who trusted an ML system to be up to snuff are currently pounding sand.

I guess you could ask the model. "Yes well done, you're a visionary software engineer".

I am not saying he writes all code by hand, of course. Just that he is furthest in figuring out some sort of mid point between full comprehension and cognitive surrender.

I have missed the more recent content, so perhaps I have missed something, but this was my read last I watched.