The bit about "we have automated coding, but not software engineering" matches my experience. LLMs are good at writing individual functions but terrible at deciding which functions should exist.
My project has a C++ matching engine, Node.js orchestration, Python for ML inference, and a JS frontend. No LLM suggested that architecture - it came from hitting real bottlenecks. The LLMs helped write a lot of the implementation once I knew what shape it needed to be.
Where I've found AI most dangerous is the "dark flow" the article describes. I caught myself approving a generated function that looked correct but had a subtle fallback to rate-matching instead of explicit code mapping. Two different tax codes both had an effective rate of 0, so the rate-match picked the wrong one every time. That kind of domain bug won't get caught by an LLM because it doesn't understand your data model.
Architecture decisions and domain knowledge are still entirely on you. The typing is faster though.
I think it all boils down to, which is higher risk, using AI too much, or using AI too little?
Right now I see the former as being hugely risky. Hallucinated bugs, coaxed into dead-end architectures, security concerns, not being familiar with the code when a bug shows up in production, less sense of ownership, less hands-on learning, etc. This is true both at the personal level and at the business level.
The latter, you may be less productive than optimal, but might the hands-on training and fundamental understanding of the codebase make up for it in the long run?
Additionally, I personally find my best ideas often happen when knee deep in some codebase, hitting some weird edge case that doesn't fit, that would probably never come up if I was just reviewing an already-completed PR.
Very reasonable take. The fact that this is being downvoted really shows how poor HN's collective critical thinking has become. Silicon Valley is cannibalizing itself and it's pretty funny to watch from the outside with a clear head.
> However, it is important to ask if you want to stop investing in your own skills because of a speculative prediction made by an AI researcher or tech CEO.
I don't think these are exclusive. Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post about this [0]. I spent the time since then both learning better software design and learning to vibe code. I've worked through Domain-Driven Design Distilled, Domain-Driven Design, Implementing Domain-Driven Design, Design Patterns, The Art of Agile Software Development, 2nd Edition, Clean Architecture, Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, and Tidy First?. I'm a far better software engineer than I was in 2024. I've also vibe coded [1] a whole lot of software [2], some good and some bad [3].
[1]: As defined in Vibe Coding: Building Production-Grade Software With GenAI, Chat, Agents, and Beyond by Gene Kim and Steve Yegge, wherein you still take responsibility for the code you deliver.
I personally found out that knowing how to use ai coding assistants productively is a skill like any other and a) it requires a significant investment of time b) can be quite rewarding to learn just as any other skill c) might be useful now or in the future and d) doesn't negate the usefulness of any other skills acquired on the past nor diminishes the usefulness of learning new skills in the future
On the using AI assistants I find that everything is moving so fast that I feel constantly like "I'm doing this wrong". Is the answer simply "dedicate time to experimenting? I keep hearing "spec driven design" or "Ralph" maybe I should learn those? Genuine thoughts and questions btw.
More specifically regarding spec-driven development:
There's a good reason that most successful examples of those tools like openspec are to-do apps etc. As soon as the project grows to 'relevant' size of complexity, maintaining specs is just as hard as whatever other methodology offers. Also from my brief attempts - similar to human based coding, we actually do quite well with incomplete specs. So do agents, but they'll shrug at all the implicit things much more than humans do. So you'll see more flip-flopped things you did not specify, and if you nail everything down hard, the specs get unwieldy - large and overly detailed.
Everybody feels like this, and I think nobody stays ahead of the curve for a prolonged time. There's just too many wrinkles.
But also, you don't have to upgrade every iteration. I think it's absolutely worthwhile to step off the hamster wheel every now and then, just work with you head down for a while and come back after a few weeks. One notices that even though the world didn't stop spinning, you didn't get the whiplash of every rotation.
I think find what works for you, and everything else is kind of noise.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.
——
Ive also found that picking something and learning about it helps me with mental models for picking up other paradigms later, similar to how learning Java doesn’t actually prevent you from say picking up Python or Javascript
Agreed. I find most design patterns end up as a mess eventually, at least when followed religiously. DDD being one of the big offenders. They all seem to converge on the same type of "over engineered spaghetti" that LOOKS well factored at a glance, but is incredibly hard to understand or debug in practice.
I was going to ask the same thing. I'm self taught but I've mainly gone the other way, more interested in learning about lower level things. Bang for buck I think I might have been better reading DDD type books.
Just because you’re a good programmer / software engineer doesn’t mean you’re a good architect, or a good UI designer, or a good product manager. Yet in my experience, using LLMs to successfully produce software really works those architect, designer, and manager muscles, and thus requires them to be strong.
i used to lose hours each day to typos, linting issues, bracket-instead-of-curly-bracket, 'was it the first parameter or the second parameter', looking up accumulator/anonymous function callback syntax AGAIN...
idk what ya'll are doing with AI, and i dont really care. i can finally - fiiinally - stay focused on the problem im trying to solve for more than 5 minutes.
I wonder for mature code deep in the dependency chain (ie Linux kernel, other open source) we can/should see higher per line of code scrutiny over the changes than someone vibe coding a greenfield app.
We simply don’t know. But we have a lot of examples of the latter in the dataset. And we all know greenfield apps are quite a different beast than a mature product under severe constraints and high degrees of specific expertise. OTOH these mature projects may be more likely to have good test environments making them more suitable.
I see AI coding as something like project management. You could delegate all of the tasks to an LLM, or you could assign some to yourself.
If you keep some for yourself, there’s a possibility that you might not churn out as much code as quickly as someone delegating all programming to AI. But maybe shipping 45,000 lines a day instead of 50,000 isn’t that bad.
You need to understand the frustration behind these kinds of posts.
The people on the start of the curve are the ones who swear against LLMs for engineering, and are the loudest in the comments.
The people on the end of the curve are the ones who spam about only vibing, not looking at code and are attempting to build this new expectation for the new interaction layer for software to be LLM exclusively. These ones are the loudest on posts/blogs.
The ones in the middle are people who accept using LLMs as a tool, and like with all tools they exercise restraint and caution. Because waiting 5 to 10 seconds each time for an LLM to change the color of your font, and getting it wrong is slower than just changing it yourself. You might as well just go in and do these tiny adjustments yourself.
It's the engineers at both ends that have made me lose my will to live.
The point about vibe coding eroding fundamentals resonates. I've noticed that when I lean too heavily on LLM-generated code, I stop thinking about edge cases and error handling — the model optimizes for the happy path and so do I. The real skill shift isn't coding vs not coding, it's learning to be a better reviewer and architect of code you didn't write yourself.
Fascinating - I find the opposite is true. I think of edge cases more and direct the exploration of them. I’ve found my 35 years experience tells me where the gaps will be and I’m usually right. I’ve been able to build much more complex software than before not because I didn’t know how but because as one person I couldn’t possibly do it. The process isn’t any easier just faster.
I’ve found also AI assisted stuff is remarkable for algorithmically complex things to implement.
However one thing I definitely identify with is the trouble sleeping. I am finally able to do a plethora of things I couldn’t do before due to the limits of one man typing. But I don’t build tools I don’t need, I have too little time and too many needs.
"they don’t produce useful layers of abstraction nor meaningful modularization. They don’t value conciseness or improving organization in a large code base. We have automated coding, but not software engineering"
Which frankly describes pretty much all real world commercial software projects I've been on, too.
Software engineering hasn't happened yet. Agents produce big balls of mud because we do, too.
which is why the most famous book in the world of software development pointed out that the long term success of a software project is not defined by man hours or lines of code written but by documentation, clear interfaces and the capacity to manage the complexity of a project.
Maybe they need to start handing out copies of the mythical man month again because people seem to be oblivious to insights we already had a few decades ago
The bit about "we have automated coding, but not software engineering" matches my experience. LLMs are good at writing individual functions but terrible at deciding which functions should exist.
My project has a C++ matching engine, Node.js orchestration, Python for ML inference, and a JS frontend. No LLM suggested that architecture - it came from hitting real bottlenecks. The LLMs helped write a lot of the implementation once I knew what shape it needed to be.
Where I've found AI most dangerous is the "dark flow" the article describes. I caught myself approving a generated function that looked correct but had a subtle fallback to rate-matching instead of explicit code mapping. Two different tax codes both had an effective rate of 0, so the rate-match picked the wrong one every time. That kind of domain bug won't get caught by an LLM because it doesn't understand your data model.
Architecture decisions and domain knowledge are still entirely on you. The typing is faster though.
I think it all boils down to, which is higher risk, using AI too much, or using AI too little?
Right now I see the former as being hugely risky. Hallucinated bugs, coaxed into dead-end architectures, security concerns, not being familiar with the code when a bug shows up in production, less sense of ownership, less hands-on learning, etc. This is true both at the personal level and at the business level.
The latter, you may be less productive than optimal, but might the hands-on training and fundamental understanding of the codebase make up for it in the long run?
Additionally, I personally find my best ideas often happen when knee deep in some codebase, hitting some weird edge case that doesn't fit, that would probably never come up if I was just reviewing an already-completed PR.
Very reasonable take. The fact that this is being downvoted really shows how poor HN's collective critical thinking has become. Silicon Valley is cannibalizing itself and it's pretty funny to watch from the outside with a clear head.
I think it's like the California gold rush. Anybody and their brother can go out and dig, but the real money is in selling the shovels.
> However, it is important to ask if you want to stop investing in your own skills because of a speculative prediction made by an AI researcher or tech CEO.
I don't think these are exclusive. Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post about this [0]. I spent the time since then both learning better software design and learning to vibe code. I've worked through Domain-Driven Design Distilled, Domain-Driven Design, Implementing Domain-Driven Design, Design Patterns, The Art of Agile Software Development, 2nd Edition, Clean Architecture, Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, and Tidy First?. I'm a far better software engineer than I was in 2024. I've also vibe coded [1] a whole lot of software [2], some good and some bad [3].
You can choose to grow in both areas.
[0]: https://kerrick.blog/articles/2025/kerricks-wager/
[1]: As defined in Vibe Coding: Building Production-Grade Software With GenAI, Chat, Agents, and Beyond by Gene Kim and Steve Yegge, wherein you still take responsibility for the code you deliver.
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46702093
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46719500
I personally found out that knowing how to use ai coding assistants productively is a skill like any other and a) it requires a significant investment of time b) can be quite rewarding to learn just as any other skill c) might be useful now or in the future and d) doesn't negate the usefulness of any other skills acquired on the past nor diminishes the usefulness of learning new skills in the future
On the using AI assistants I find that everything is moving so fast that I feel constantly like "I'm doing this wrong". Is the answer simply "dedicate time to experimenting? I keep hearing "spec driven design" or "Ralph" maybe I should learn those? Genuine thoughts and questions btw.
More specifically regarding spec-driven development:
There's a good reason that most successful examples of those tools like openspec are to-do apps etc. As soon as the project grows to 'relevant' size of complexity, maintaining specs is just as hard as whatever other methodology offers. Also from my brief attempts - similar to human based coding, we actually do quite well with incomplete specs. So do agents, but they'll shrug at all the implicit things much more than humans do. So you'll see more flip-flopped things you did not specify, and if you nail everything down hard, the specs get unwieldy - large and overly detailed.
Everybody feels like this, and I think nobody stays ahead of the curve for a prolonged time. There's just too many wrinkles.
But also, you don't have to upgrade every iteration. I think it's absolutely worthwhile to step off the hamster wheel every now and then, just work with you head down for a while and come back after a few weeks. One notices that even though the world didn't stop spinning, you didn't get the whiplash of every rotation.
I think find what works for you, and everything else is kind of noise.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.
——
Ive also found that picking something and learning about it helps me with mental models for picking up other paradigms later, similar to how learning Java doesn’t actually prevent you from say picking up Python or Javascript
As someone with 20 years experience, DDD is a stupid idea, skip it and do yourself a favour.
You'll probably be forming some counter-arguments in your head.
Skip them, throw the DDD books in the bin, and do your co-workers a favour.
Agreed. I find most design patterns end up as a mess eventually, at least when followed religiously. DDD being one of the big offenders. They all seem to converge on the same type of "over engineered spaghetti" that LOOKS well factored at a glance, but is incredibly hard to understand or debug in practice.
Of those 3 DDD books - which did you find the most valuable?
I was going to ask the same thing. I'm self taught but I've mainly gone the other way, more interested in learning about lower level things. Bang for buck I think I might have been better reading DDD type books.
Just because you’re a good programmer / software engineer doesn’t mean you’re a good architect, or a good UI designer, or a good product manager. Yet in my experience, using LLMs to successfully produce software really works those architect, designer, and manager muscles, and thus requires them to be strong.
I really disagree with this. I don’t think you can be a good software engineer without being a good product manager and a good architect.
i used to lose hours each day to typos, linting issues, bracket-instead-of-curly-bracket, 'was it the first parameter or the second parameter', looking up accumulator/anonymous function callback syntax AGAIN...
idk what ya'll are doing with AI, and i dont really care. i can finally - fiiinally - stay focused on the problem im trying to solve for more than 5 minutes.
I wonder for mature code deep in the dependency chain (ie Linux kernel, other open source) we can/should see higher per line of code scrutiny over the changes than someone vibe coding a greenfield app.
We simply don’t know. But we have a lot of examples of the latter in the dataset. And we all know greenfield apps are quite a different beast than a mature product under severe constraints and high degrees of specific expertise. OTOH these mature projects may be more likely to have good test environments making them more suitable.
I see AI coding as something like project management. You could delegate all of the tasks to an LLM, or you could assign some to yourself.
If you keep some for yourself, there’s a possibility that you might not churn out as much code as quickly as someone delegating all programming to AI. But maybe shipping 45,000 lines a day instead of 50,000 isn’t that bad.
You need to understand the frustration behind these kinds of posts.
The people on the start of the curve are the ones who swear against LLMs for engineering, and are the loudest in the comments.
The people on the end of the curve are the ones who spam about only vibing, not looking at code and are attempting to build this new expectation for the new interaction layer for software to be LLM exclusively. These ones are the loudest on posts/blogs.
The ones in the middle are people who accept using LLMs as a tool, and like with all tools they exercise restraint and caution. Because waiting 5 to 10 seconds each time for an LLM to change the color of your font, and getting it wrong is slower than just changing it yourself. You might as well just go in and do these tiny adjustments yourself.
It's the engineers at both ends that have made me lose my will to live.
The point about vibe coding eroding fundamentals resonates. I've noticed that when I lean too heavily on LLM-generated code, I stop thinking about edge cases and error handling — the model optimizes for the happy path and so do I. The real skill shift isn't coding vs not coding, it's learning to be a better reviewer and architect of code you didn't write yourself.
Fascinating - I find the opposite is true. I think of edge cases more and direct the exploration of them. I’ve found my 35 years experience tells me where the gaps will be and I’m usually right. I’ve been able to build much more complex software than before not because I didn’t know how but because as one person I couldn’t possibly do it. The process isn’t any easier just faster.
I’ve found also AI assisted stuff is remarkable for algorithmically complex things to implement.
However one thing I definitely identify with is the trouble sleeping. I am finally able to do a plethora of things I couldn’t do before due to the limits of one man typing. But I don’t build tools I don’t need, I have too little time and too many needs.
> when I lean too heavily on LLM-generated code, I stop thinking about edge cases and error handling
I have the exact same experience... if you don't use it, you'll lose it
Ive come to the realization after maxing the x20 plan that I have to set clear priorities.
Fortunately, I've retired so I'm going focus on flooding the zone with my crazy ideas made manifest in books.
"they don’t produce useful layers of abstraction nor meaningful modularization. They don’t value conciseness or improving organization in a large code base. We have automated coding, but not software engineering"
Which frankly describes pretty much all real world commercial software projects I've been on, too.
Software engineering hasn't happened yet. Agents produce big balls of mud because we do, too.
which is why the most famous book in the world of software development pointed out that the long term success of a software project is not defined by man hours or lines of code written but by documentation, clear interfaces and the capacity to manage the complexity of a project.
Maybe they need to start handing out copies of the mythical man month again because people seem to be oblivious to insights we already had a few decades ago