zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
Weird to claim the llm does all the boring learning and boilerplate for you as a selling point, but then also insist we still need to responsibly read all the output, and if you can't understand it's a "skill issue".

Also the emphasis on greenfield projects? Starting is by FAR the easiest part. That's not impressive to me. When do we get to code greenfield for important systems? Reminds me of the equally absurd example of language choice. You think you get to choose? What?

Imagine all the code these agents are going to pump out that can never be reviewed in a reasonable time frame. The noise generated at the whim of bike-shedding vibe coders is going to drown all the senior reviewers soon enough. I'll call that Cowboy Coders on Steroids. Anyone with skills will be buried in reviews, won't have time for anything else, and I predict stricter code gen policies to compensate.

>>r0s+6T
And (rigorously) reviewing code is easily 10x harder than writing it.

But this won't stop it from happening.

>>layla5+3V
This is just obviously not true. I had a full-time job of reviewing code for roughly 15 years and it was never true, but it's also just intuitively not true that engineers spend 10 hours reviewing their peers code to every 1 they spend writing it.

What you mean to claim here is that verification is 10x harder than authorship. That's true, but unhelpful to skeptics, because LLMs are extremely useful for verification.

>>tptace+e31
While I'm still a skeptic (despite my Cursor usage at work), I still absolutely agree. Careful review has never been 10x more difficult than writing the code, I'm not sure where this comes from. And I've had about the same experience as you.

Also, and know this doesn't matter, but it's so weird to see this downvoted. That's not an "I disagree" button...

>>girvo+i41
Thanks! On HN, it actually is a "disagree" button though; totally cromulent to downvote disagreement here. One of the site's big idiosyncrasies!