zlacker

>>strayd+(OP)
>The people really leading AI coding right now (and I’d put myself near the front, though not all the way there) don’t read code. They manage the things that produce code.

I can’t imagine any other example where people voluntarily move for a black box approach.

Imagine taking a picture on autoshot mode and refusing to look at it. If the client doesn’t like it because it’s too bright, tweak the settings and shoot again, but never look at the output.

What is the logic here? Because if you can read code, I can’t imagine poking the result with black box testing being faster.

Are these people just handing off the review process to others? Are they unable to read code and hiding it? Why would you handicap yourself this way?

>>kace91+Ek
I think many people are missing the overall meaning of these sorts of posts.. that is they are describing a new type of programmer that will only use agents and never read the underlying code. These vibe/agent coders will use natural(-ish) language to communicate with the agents and wouldn't look at the code anymore than, say, a PHP developer would look at the underlying assembly. It is not the level of abstraction they are working on. There are many use cases where this type of coding will work fine and it will let many people who previously couldn't really take advantage of computers to do so. This is great but in no way will do anything to replace the need for code that requires humans to understand (which, in turn, requires participation in the writing).

>>eikenb+dz
Your analogy to PHP developers not reading assembly got me thinking.

Early resistance to high-level (i.e. compiled) languages came from assembly programmers who couldn’t imagine that the compiler could generate code that was just as performant as their hand-crafted product. For a while they were right, but improved compiler design and the relentless performance increases in hardware made it so that even an extra 10-20% boost you might get from perfectly hand-crafted assembly was almost never worth the developer time.

There is an obvious parallel here, but it’s not quite the same. The high-level language is effectively a formal spec for the abstract machine which is faithfully translated by the (hopefully bug-free) compiler. Natural language is not a formal spec for anything, and LLM-based agents are not formally verifiable software. So the tradeoffs involved are not only about developer time vs. performance, but also correctness.

>>jkhdig+RC
> So the tradeoffs involved are not only about developer time vs. performance, but also correctness.

The "now that producing plausible code is free, verification becomes the bottleneck" people are technically right, of course, but I think they're missing the context that very few projects cared much about correctness to begin with.

The biggest headache I can see right now is just the humans keeping track of all the new code, because it arrives faster than they can digest it.

But I guess "let go of the need to even look at the code" "solves" that problem, for many projects... Strange times!

For example -- someone correct me if I'm wrong -- OpenClaw was itself almost entirely written by AI, and the developer bragged about not reading the code. If anything, in this niche, that actually helped the project's success, rather than harming it.

(In the case of Windows 11 recently.. not so much ;)

>>andai+fY
> The "now that producing plausible code is free, verification becomes the bottleneck" people are technically right, of course, but I think they're missing the context that very few projects cared much about correctness to begin with.

It's certainly hard to find, in consumer-tech, an example of a product that was displaced in the market by a slower moving competitor due to buggy releases. Infamously, "move fast and break things" has been the rule of the land.

In SaaS and B2B deterministic results becomes much more important. There's still bugs, of course, but showstopper bugs are major business risks. And combinatorial state+logic still makes testing a huge tarpit.

The world didn't spend the last century turning customer service agents and business-process-workers into script-following human-robots for no reason, and big parts of it won't want to reintroduce high levels of randmoness... (That's not even necessarily good for any particular consumer - imagine an insurance company with a "claims agent" that got sweet talked into spending hundreds of millions more on things that were legitimate benefits for their customers, but that management wanted to limit whenever possible on technicalities.)