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
You have misunderstood this "common wisdom".

The idea is that people will spend 10x more time reading your code in all future time stacked together. Not that reading and understanding your code once takes 10x the effort of writing it, which is obviously untrue.

Here is the quote from Clean Code, where this idea seems to originate from:

> Indeed, the ratio of time spent reading versus writing code is well over 10 to 1.