Hacker News
points by mrweasel 15 hours ago | 0 comments
From the article:

> they are not hesitant to use a coding assistant, they are hesitant to go all in and let the agents do all the execution.

They are embracing the use of coding agents, but they still want to be in control. That also matches what I see from my most talented colleagues. They outsource certain tasks to the AI and verify the output.

My somewhat unpopular opinion is that only very good developers are able to use AI coding tools somewhat safely. They could have written the code themselves, but it's faster to have the agent do and then verify. The rest of us couldn't write the code, at least not when we start on a project. When we finish, we have some of the skills and could rely more on the AI tools if we were to do it again.

[–] x3haloed 14 hours ago
I have a suspicion that eventually you won't have to be a developer to successfully create good software. I do think that familiarity with algorithm design will still help a lot. But ultimately, if your verification, testing, and observability regimes are good enough, the exact implementation shouldn't matter.
[–] roncesvalles 8 hours ago
What you're not considering is that software implementation is a 2-way street. The process of reading what you wrote both elucidates something more about the problem, and elicits from you some aspects about the program's behavior that you do care about but didn't consider before.

LLMs for many months have been at a level where if you know exactly what you want, you can simply let the LLM bang out an implementation and never have to read it. But outside of simple problems, you probably don't know what you exactly want.

That being said, I've had considerable success ending every prompt with "ask me for any further details that I haven't considered" or some variation thereof.

[–] 4b11b4 14 hours ago
I'd lean similarly, but those regimes you list aren't likely going to be done by accident.
[–] x3haloed 11 hours ago
Oh, you are 100% correct about that.