> The role change has been described by some as becoming a sort of software engineering manager, where one writes little or no code oneself but instead supervises a team of AI coding agents as if they are a team of human junior software engineers....
> In reality, though, the code review load for software engineers will gradually increase as fewer and fewer of them are expected to supervise an ever-growing number of coding agents, and they will inevitably learn to become complacent over time, out of pure necessity for their sanity. I’m a proponent of code review...but even I often consider it a slog to do my due diligence for a large code review (just because I think it’s important doesn’t mean I think it’s fun). If it’s your full-time job to review a swarm of agents’ work, and experience tells you they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should and bad changes will get through.
Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job. The machine takes many of the fun parts and leaves the human with more of the unenjoyable parts.
Under our new ways of working, you are required to be excited an curious about this evolution three times per day.
Sounds a lot like "self-driving" cars - "they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should".
Same thing happens here, you get complacent and miss critical failures or problems.
It's also similar in that it "take[s away] many of the fun parts". When I can focus on simply driving it can be engaging and enjoyable - no matter the road or traffic or whatever.
>Sounds a lot like "self-driving" cars - "they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should".
That might be an issue for supervised "self-driving" cars (eg. tesla FSD), but not really applicable to self driving cars as a whole. Waymo seems to be doing just fine for instance.
Exactly why I put "self-driving" in quotes. Right now AI assisted coding might generally be at the equivalent of Level-2 or -3 self-driving. Getting to autonomous coding agents will be like the step change that is Level-4 or -5 driving.
But isn't that what Linux admins said when Cloud and Platform Engineering became a "thing".
Puppet, Chef, Ansible they are taking the fun out of system administration, Cloud it's going to take away my job. But what happened is roles changed, SRE, Platform Engineering, dare I say DevOps engineers (whatever those are) all emerged.
Software engineering is going through he same transformation with the same knee jerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Either AI run rampant with no guardrails like OpenClaw people burning 1000s in tokens, OpenClaw calling them randomly at 2am, etc.. then on the other side of the argument we have a petition asking the Node.js Technical Steering Committee to ban AI-assisted code from Node.js core.
AI is here, it's here to stay, I believe that those of us that will be successful will find the middle ground.
I think it depends on what you find enjoyable. I think people who like the tinkering and the actual act of coding, debugging, etc. will find it less and less fun to be in this area, but people who like to look at the big picture, and solve problems, will see that they will now be better at both getting overview of larger and larger codebases and that technical debt that was never attainable to solve before can now be “outsourced” to LLM’s.
I find that fun. I work in a 50 year old IT company, with lots of legacy code and technical debt which we have never been able to address - suddenly it’s within reach to really get us to a better place.
The best way to have a big picture view of a project is to build a mental model of that project in your head. Coding with LLMs removes that ability, and replaces it with an illusion.
I'm as nerdy as they come (my current project is the fourth compiler I've worked on), and I absolutely love this new way of working. There's a lot more time spent in discussion with the agent (an extremely frustrating discussion, to be fair). All of a sudden, there's an extremely high payoff to investing in good fundamentals (namely, clarity of requirements, good tools, etc.), which are the things I want to invest in anyway! If you get these fundamentals right, you can let the agent rip and produce hundreds of PRs that are correct, or create workflows that are actually not slop or ship code that is, while not yet as high quality as if you wrote it manually, quite close, at easily five times the speed.
And throughout this, if I'm ever curious about how the ideas relate to some other topic, I can just ask the agent, "Are we designing XYZ right now? Categorically, is it this?" Lots of really cool discussions to be had.
I might be less enthusiastic if I was just shipping CSS changes and the like.
And even then - I still read the code it generates, and if I see a better way of doing something I just step in, write a partial solution, and then sketch out how the complete solution should work.
i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that end-users get upset when a change takes a long time or it ends up breaking something for them.
just because people are finding that agents or whatever are speeding changes up now doesn't necessarily mean they won't encounter a slow-down later when the codebase becomes an un-maintainable mess. technical debt is always a thing, even with machines doing the work (the agent/machine still has to parse a codebase to make changes).
What makes you think that AI couldn’t make the same changes without breaking it whether you modify the code or not? And you do have automated unit tests don’t you?
Right now I have a 5000 line monolithic vibe coded internal website that is at most going to be used by 3 people. It mixes Python, inline CSS and Javasript with the API. I haven’t looked at a line of code. My IAM permissions for the Lambda runtime has limited permissions (meaning the code can’t do anything that the permissions won’t allow it to). I used AWS Cognito for authorization and validated the security of the endpoints and I validated the permissions of the database user.
Neither Claude nor Codex have any issues adding pages, features and API endpoints without breaking changes.
By definition, coding agents are the worse they will be right now.
i have a rule of thumb based on past experience. circa 10k per developer involved, reducing as the codebase size increases.
> 5000 line
so that's currently half a developer according to my rule of thumb.
what happens when that gets to 20,000 lines...? that's over the line in my experience for a human who was the person who wrote it. it takes longer to make changes. change that are made increasingly go out in a more and more broken state. etc. etc. more and more tests have to be written for each change to try and stop it going out in a broken state. more work needs to be done for a feature with equal complexity compared to when we started, because now the rest of the codebase is what adds complexity to us making changes. etc. etc. and that gets worse the more we add.
these agent things have a tendency and propensity to add more code, rather than adding the most maintainable code. it's why people have to review and edit the majority of generated code features beyond CRUD webapp functionality (or similar boilerplate). so, given time and more features, 5k --> 10k --> 20k --> ... too much for a single human being if the agent tools are no longer available.
so let's take it to a bit of a hyperbolic conclusion ... what about agents and a 5,000,000 line codebase...? do you think these agents will take the same amount of time to make a change in a codebase of that size versus 5,000 lines? how much more expensive do you think it could get to run the agents at that size? how about increases in error rate when making changes? how many extra tests need to be added for each feature to ensure zero breakage?
do you see my point?
(fyi: the 5 million LoC is a thought experiment to get you to critically think about the problem technical debt related to agents as codebase size increases, i'm not saying your website's code will get that big)
(also, sorry i basically wrote most of this over the 20 minutes or so since i first posted... my adhd is killing me today)
I like programming for fun, but professional software engineering has never been more than very occasionally fun to me. I do it because it pays well.
Most companies use some variant of the sprint/"agile" methodology, which means that you as the programmer are similar to an assembly line worker. You don't control the pace, you rarely get the chance to actually finish anything as much as you would like to so you don't get the satisfaction of a finished product, you get little downtime in between tickets or projects to feel a sense of satisfaction at what you have done before you move on to something else.
I totally understand why businesses operate this way. It's simple: if you try not to operate this way, you increase the likelihood that your competitors will release more rapidly and take all your market share. It's the basic evolutionary logic. If you can release a decent but buggy product six months faster than the competitor can release a better and less buggy product, there is a good chance that you will drive them out of business. It all makes sense, but it doesn't result in a pleasant experience for me as a programmer.
The job is also very sedentary and it puts stress on your eyes and your hands. Of course I'm not going to compare myself to a coal miner, but the fact remains that in its own ways the job is more rough on the body than some people might expect. Meanwhile the intellectual and constantly changing nature of the field means that you can never rest on your laurels - the job requires constant mental engagement. It's hard to do it well while multitasking and thinking about other interesting things at the same time.
If jobs in this field did not pay so well, I don't think I'd ever even consider doing this as a career. It just doesn't have nearly enough upsides for me. The only upside I can think of besides the money is that you get to spend time interacting with intelligent people. But one can get that in other places.
Coding with the help of AI is a big improvement for me because just automating away the boilerplate and greatly reducing the time that needs to be spent in doing reading, research and experimentation already takes away some of the main time-sinks of the job. And while I appreciate code's deterministic and logical elegance, I've written more than enough code in my life to not miss writing it directly. I also enjoy writing English, after all. It's refreshing for me to spend my time composing precise English instructions for the AI instead of writing in a programming language. My English skills are above average, so this also helps me to leverage one of my talents that had previously been underutilized. Well, my English skills always came in handy when I needed to talk to coworkers or managers, but I meant that they had been underutilized in the act of actually creating software.
> Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job.
Completely backwards - the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions. The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
>> Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job.
> Completely backwards - the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions.
Aren't the coding agents supposed to be doing that too? You give them the problem, they code up a solution, then the engineer is left with the review it to see if it's good enough.
> The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
That's like such a minor and easy-to-do thing that I'm surprised you're even bringing it up.
Eh, that’s not at all how I do it. I like to design the architecture and spec and let them implement the code. That is a fun skill to exercise. Sometimes I give a little more leeway in letting them decide how to implement, but that can go off the rails.
imho “tell them what you want and let them come up with a solution” is a really naive way to use these tools nearly guaranteed to end up with slopware.
the more up front design I’ve given thought to, they are usually very accurate in delivering to the point I dont need to spend very much time reviewing at all. and, this is a step I would have had to do anyway if doing it by hand, so it feels natural, and results in far more correct code more often than I could have on my own, and allows multitasking several projects at once, which would have been impossible before.
Except you kind of do -- understanding data structures, understanding software engineering concepts, all of the things that you learn as a good engineer, those are ways that you help guide the LLM in its work.
> Except you kind of do -- understanding data structures, understanding software engineering concepts, all of the things that you learn as a good engineer,
I don't think kids are learning those things in 2026, they just ask an LLM.
Someone posted on here the other day about how they were taking a non-credit writing class in college so as to improve their writing, that was the reason the course existed. 90% of the class was kicked out because they were using LLMs to write for them, when the entire purpose of the class was to improve ones own writing.
Why do you think it will be any different with programming?
I think i'm going to let people decide for themselves what they enjoy in their job rather than pretending I know better than they do what they should and should not enjoy.
Companies aren't investing in AI because they want to solve the problem of semicolon placement. They want AI to solve problems and come up with solutions. Then they want to fire most of their programmers and force the rest to do nothing but check over and fix the slop their marketing departments are churning out.
I don't know why they'd stop at most programmers instead of all programmers. And the marketing department will also be AI. Companies want AI to remove the need for any labor so they can more directly gain money based on already having money.
They'll need at least a few programmers because AI doesn't actually work very well and fixes will be required. The marketing department may end up replaced by AI but so far marketers have convinced companies that they're so essential that even the most popular and well known brands in the world feel the need to spend billions on more and more marketing. If anyone can talk their way into staying employed it'll be marketers.
> the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions
Who are you to tell anyone what the fun "should" be?
Personally, I find writing code very fun, because building the solution is also very gratifying.
Besides which, in my experience until you actually write the code you haven't proven that you solved anything. It's so easy to think you have solved a problem when you haven't, but you won't figure that out until you actually try to apply your solution
> The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
This can be solved with simple linters, no need for LLMs
Exactly, the fun part is when the code works and does what you wanted it to do. Writing code itself is not fun. People forget this because they get small wins / dopamine hits along the way, a clever function, an elegant few lines of code, a bug fix, but the majority of that time coding is just a grind until the end where you get the big dopamine hit.
Fun is not measured objectively. Different people find different things fun. I enjoy writing code very much (in addition to solving big problems; one can enjoy both).
I disagree with the author's interpretation of many of their points.
> Skill Atrophy
Very true, but in the same way moving from assembly -> scripting languages degraded the skill of programmers to manage memory. AI is another tool (albeit one that's on a different level than any other transformation we've had); what matters is whether the programmer understands the intent of the code, not the 0's and 1's that it turns into. That intent is still there, we're just writing it at a much higher level than before.
> Artificially low cost
This heavily depends model to model. IMO OpenAI/Anthropic are likely the outliers here, and I do agree that it's unlikely they'll recoup the training costs for their specific models, but they also legitimized an industry - something that's hard to tangibly price. Many of the models out of China however will almost certainly recoup cost. Qwen 3 had a training price of around $1.6m USD. In the first quarter of this year OpenRouter processed around 5 trillion tokens from it, landing at around 2.5m in revenue (very rough numbers). Assuming a 30% margin, that's already 40% of their training cost in revenue for a quarter from a single platform - their usage in china is almost certainly higher.
The reality is training costs are getting cheaper. I agree that currently the top providers are heavily subsidizing costs, but that doesn't mean you can't drive revenue, they just choose not to as having the "best" model right now gives them clout.
Yeah, I agree. The first point depends on the second: skill atrophy is only an issue if you expect that coding LLMs will essentially disappear or become much more expensive. But they won't. There are companies offering GLM-5 at a profit, and it's affordable, and a great model.
The third point is moot if you run agents in a container and review their code, which you can and should do.
The fourth point is real, but the chance of it actually ending up harming people who use LLMs to write code is IMO remote.
As someone who worked on “prompt injection” before it was called “prompt injection” for an (unfinished) phd…
yeah there is only one surefire 100% fix for “prompt injection”: use deterministic solutions ie not machine learning.
----
addendum in case someone tries to make this commonly made point -- i don't use deterministic here to mean "i've pinned the ML model weights after training". i use it in reference to the probability theory stuff of training/models (the boring and complicated maths stuff).
Skills do atrophy if you don't practice them, but also, refreshing your memory about some technology you haven't used in a while, or even learning something new, is easier than ever. You can ask the AI questions and try things out yourself very easily. Maybe "just in time" learning isn't good enough, but that's more of a concern based on speculation than a truth.
AI is being subsidized, but also, inference costs are dropping due to algorithmic improvements. For example, TurboQuant [1] looks pretty promising and even if it doesn't pan out, there are plenty of other potential advances like that. Competition might result in AI inference being available at good prices even without subsidies. So, again, more of a concern than a "truth."
Prompt injection: an unsolved mess, but perhaps curated, trusted datasets will be good enough for many projects, so you don't have to expose your agent to the open Internet? It's a similar problem to the supply-chain vulnerabilities that downloadable open source libraries have. A valid concern, but it seems like we'll improve security and muddle through?
Copyright: also an unsolved mess, but kind of similar. Search engines copy the web as part of how they work, but that didn't stop Google from becoming big tech. And sure, Napster was built on copying music and was shut down, but YouTube was also built on widespread copyright violation and it muddled through. It's unclear whether copyright law is load-bearing infrastructure for the software industry or for open source software.
I didn't find this very convincing. Especially the argument around artificially low cost -- we know that training the next model is the biggest cost for these companies, and we've already seen inference costs fall drastically (https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends).
Yes, Dario has publicly stated that models are already profitable if you exclude R&D for the next model.
Even if that’s not true, given that hardware and software efficiency gains can be expected to continue it’s likely that this is the most expensive the current level of intelligence will ever be.
The frontier models may increase in price, but only because they’re also more capable. If you hold intelligence constant, price should fall over time.
The more immediate uncomfortable truth for me is that my company is requiring all developers to use LLMs, and laying off developers who won't make the switch. I'm not sure that "LLM-based AI coding agents have no place now, or ever, in generating production code for any software I build professionally" is a decision that most of us will have a choice in.
You're right about that. It's something I should have addressed in the original article, but I don't really have a solution for those who aren't self-employed. Maybe just use up a bunch of tokens on junk tasks while continuing to secretly write the code yourself? It's super wasteful, but do what you have to do to survive until the bubble pops.
The skill atrophy point strikes me as tenuous at best. Obviously, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I find myself able to work on projects of greater complexity than I would have been able to otherwise. 90% of my time is spent going back and forth on Markdown files, discussing the architecture, trade-offs, etc. I don't think it's necessarily impossible to use all this newfound power to ship more sloppier code. It's clearly possible to use all this newfound power to ship better code too.
Exactly, this is like watching youtubers code, ie backseat coding. It’s easy to follow along but taking control midway is anything but, especially in a codebase that has been written by an agent
and you don’t have any muscle-memory in.
I think what you're implying is that the agent ships unmaintainable slop. Certainly, if I don't pay attention and review the code line by line, it will ship slop. And even sometimes, when I'm certain that it is implemented one way, I'll come back to the code many days later and discover that it went a completely different route than I expected. Very frustrating.
But it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to put an effort into shipping fewer, better features as opposed to more features. The projects I'm working on (e.g. agent orchestration, because who isn't nowadays) have a small surface area and high payoff and thus are uniquely well positioned for this.
If I couldn't use an LLM, I would still work on this, and it would have roughly the same architecture. But because I'm able to go probably 100x as fast, I'm able to be much more ambitious. Or rather, I'm able to discover that my initial ideas were not on point and pivot, and not have any sense of sunk cost
Totally agree with this taking on projects of greater complexity. I honestly feel the sloppier code thing is going to die soon. People make mistakes too. Always see people holding the machine to like this totally different standard.
I agree. I think we simply don't have the tools yet to hold agents to that high architectural standard. It simply takes a lot of focused effort and berating and close comprehension of the code at the moment to ship anything good, but there are lots of people (myself included) working on that problem. I'm pretty sure in a matter of months it will be solved.
a real study from Microsoft + Carnegie Mellon University with 319 study participants
> while GenAI can improve worker efficiency, it can inhibit critical engagement with work and can potentially lead to long-term overreliance on the tool and diminished skill for independent problem-solving.
> I recognize that it is reminiscent of a few decades ago when old timers complained about the proliferation of high level programming languages and insisted they would lead to a generation of programmers lacking a proper understanding of how the system behaves beneath all that syntactic sugar and automatic garbage collection. They won’t have the foundational skills necessary to design and build quality software. And, for the most part, they turned out to be wrong.
What if the old timers were actually right? I tend to think they were.
The copyright example is naive at best. Any AI work that has been meaningfully modified by a human can be copyrighted. So if LLM generated code is used a the starting point and it is then modified in the testing and review phases you are good. Code that has not been touched by humans is very rare.
i was kinda hoping for TFA to finally produce some research outputs or even statistics, but sadly the `uncomfortable truths` are your usual vague talking points.
Sorry, I realize the headline perhaps implies something with more rigour than it actually delivers. I'm pretty new to writing blog posts! But if you want some actual factual data, you seriously should read Ed Zitron's blog: https://www.wheresyoured.at/
The section on "artificially low costs" does not make a lot of sense to me. If anything I feel like the costs are inflated for the frontier models, not "artificially low". Easy proof: GLM-5 costs about 1/10 as much as Opus. I'm not going to tell you it's as good as Opus 4.6 -- it's not -- but it performs comparably to where frontier models were 6 months ago. (It's on par with Sonnet 4.5 on leaderboards, though in practice it's probably closer to Sonnet 4.0.)
If I can switch to an open source model today, run it myself, and spend 1/10 as much as Opus, and get to about where frontier models were 6 months ago, fear-mongering about how we'll have to weather "orders-of-magnitude price hikes" and arguing that that one shouldn't even bother to learn how to use AI at all seems disconnected from reality. Who cares about the "shady accounting" OpenAI is doing, or that AI labs are "wildly unprofitable"? I can run GLM 5 right now, forever, for cheap.
It made sense to me understanding that you can have a unit-profitable API but lose money on loss-leading campaigns like Code subscriptions. Those losses are amplified by encouraging usage. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Even in this hypothetical future, I will continue to use frontier models until they become "orders of magnitude more expensive", at which point I'll just fall back to the best open source model, which will still only be about 6 months behind. I don't see where the issue is?
If everybody stopped training models today and Anthropic and OpenAI were deleted from the universe, I'd be happy to just keep using GLM-5 at its current inference cost. The article's author assumes that there will be a point where we will no longer have access to good models at reasonable cost because current models are subsidized, but GLM-5 disproves that.
Honest question: Is inference actually being sold at a loss? I.e. does inference itself cost more to run than we're being charged, or are the companies operating at a loss because they're spending more on training than the margins they get from inference?
Companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are particularly sneaky about reporting numbers, but there's good reason to believe it is: https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/
You're right. I did a fair amount of hand-waving, and I'm leaning pretty heavily on Ed Zitron's investigative reporting to make the case instead: https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/
There were no uncomfortable truths there about code agents, save one of the 4 points which was that maybe they sometimes get prompt injected if you let them search for things online and don't pay attention to where they search and the code they write. That's not an uncomfortable truth in the normal sense of "I know you don't want to admit this but..." and more just the thing that, if you didn't know it already 8 months ago, you certainly should by now.
The other truths that were not about coding agents:
--Skill Atrophy. (Use it or lose it-- another thing we already know)
--The economics of serving code agents at scale (Ungrounded in actual numbers, only OpenAI's miscellaneous statements and annecdotes. Actual cost of running code agents: last gen's mid-tier gaming gpu's will get you reasonably close to Claude Sonnet if you put just a little time in to an agent harness, and its getting cheaper and cheaper for better and better. So, at scale, with real sysadmins doing the hard engineering to eek out every last bit of performance-- well, infra needed for serving these isn't the cost center)
--Copyright. (This passed on the same bad read of a court ruling half the press has been doing for a few years now. TLDR: The Thaler vs. Perlmutter case, which said nothing about output not being protected by copyright. It denied Thaler's attempt to register *the AI* as the owner of the copyright)
> There are four main issues contributing to the blanket ban on AI coding agents in my professional work: skill atrophy, artificially low cost, prompt injections and copyright/licensing.
- Skill atrophy is not a realistic concern. Every single technological advancement in human history should have atrophied the skills of people working in those fields, to some kind of detriment. Yet that hasn't happened (in any way any of us would notice). You can still find people skilled in everything that is still produced, and everything still gets produced. If nobody's made it in 100 years and only 1 old man still knows how to make it by hand, sure, that knowledge will die. That isn't true of things still actively produced with advanced technology, like agriculture, textiles, metalworking, woodworking, printing, art, music. If this was a serious concern, we would have freaked out more that COBOL programmers were becoming rare to find to support IRS/bank systems, well before AI existed. AI is not the problem, and rejecting it isn't the solution.
If you're concerned your skills will deteriorate, that's not something to fear. You can always get better at it again if you need to. Your brain isn't falling out of your head.
- The artificially low cost is not something to worry about. We have already invested so many dollars into LLMs that we could ride the current SOTA models for decades and still get way more value out of it than the money we burned to get here. The only reason trillions are getting spent now is insane business people are being insane. You don't have to spend trillions. There are several very small teams of AI labs who produce very good open weight models with tiny budgets. You can make much more money using even local AI than from not using it. The economics are there. Do the math: cost of an AI dev team for 1 year, cost of 1 cluster of GPUs to train on, is an order of magnitude less than some companies pay for their advertising budget.
There absolutely is an AI bubble, and when it pops, so will the US economy (causing a world recession, since the Saudis are also tied up in AI investment), but we will all keep using AI regardless. It just won't be Anthropic or OpenAI we're using. The AI world is already way bigger than that.
- Prompt injections are just one security concern, but they are solveable. The trick is to not use LLMs for everything, like most people are today. You don't allow the control plane to be AI-dictated. You segregate tainted data. You practice defense-in-depth. You lean on deterministic, versioned software more than prompts. With these and more practices, you can do a lot of valuable work safely, even with tainted data.
- I think copyright is dead. Unless there's a global rejection of AI in general (which I don't think will happen), the world will adapt to this new order, where everything is a mix of everything, and nobody really owns anything, IP wise. There is just no way to reject the immense value of AI trained on the world's content. The world will simply change its laws and conventions to fit around AI.
These opinions about what is going on w/ LLM development always stop short at first order effects and fail to account for second/third order effects.
> Skill atrophy
If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.
> Even if they set out fully intending to provide the highest level of scrutiny to all generated code, they will gradually lose the ability to tell a good change from a bad one
If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change from bad ones (second order effect) and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect). Seems like your "problem" is self correcting?
> At its core, the only defense I’ve got for that response is… this time feels different? Not a particularly rigorous defense, I admit, but I did warn you that this was the squishiest of the issues at hand.
Well, if you knew this perhaps it was better just not to lead with it and spend so many paragraphs on it.
> Some might argue that, even if that time comes eventually, that’s no reason not to make use of the tools that are available right now. But it should come as no surprise that I disagree. Better not to become overly dependent on AI coding agents in the first place so you’ll be better situated to weather the storm (and maybe even thrive) when it comes.
Well this argument didn't turn out to be any less squishy than the first one. It's a self correcting "problem" but you disagree and we should do X because you said so. What was the point of all of this then?
> Prompt Injection
I also think this will likely always be a problem but you can pretty much point at ANY tool we use in software development. Your viewpoint would be similar to saying we should stop using libraries because there's always going to be a vulnerability when you distribute code that somewhere in the chain a bad actor can inject malicious code even if the library was created by a trusted source in the industry. We have plenty of examples of this happening in real life. So far, still squishy.
> Copyright/licensing
> I’m not a lawyer! I’m a legal layperson offering my unqualified assessment of some tricky legal questions. Let’s get to it.
Sigh, this entire post is slop isn't it? Bad look for whatever "standup for me is".
edit: Standup for me is something that is made entirely irrelevant by agentic LLMs, no surprise. The irony is rich.
The author wants to be the gatekeeper of skill, quality, and how we develop while they hand feed us slop in the form of their blog posts.
> If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.
Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain.
The OP talked about that. Did you miss it?
> If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change (second order effect) from bad ones and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect).
You're ignoring the anti-human psychological factors: humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors. The tendency will be to adopt a complacent attitude, default allow. It's not a good environment for developing a skill, compared to actually actively using it.
> Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain
If humans are expected to monitor them using the skill then obviously they are still practicing the skill and the skill is developed and maintained. Help me understand why it is so difficult for everybody with this opinion to take a another step into their premise?
> humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors
Let's assume this is true for sake of discussion: That's the job, pre-llm or not. Air traffic control? occasional errors. Software bugs? occasional errors. Department of homeland security? occasional threats
If it's hard and required that we handle the issue, then it's a skill that people will naturally exercise and the skill therefore won't atrophy.
If your argument was true we'd have swarms of people doing accounting by hand instead of using accounting tools because you're worried that the accountants will atrophy their ability to audit the output of the tools.
That's not how it works in the real world and we have plenty of examples of it...
But sure, if your argument simply boils down to "this time...it's different" like the author is arguing, then let's leave it at that. There's no value in discussing it further just like there was no value in the original post. It was just mindless slop to promote "standup for me" which is also something that falls under the category of: "things that are no longer relevant because of llms"
> The role change has been described by some as becoming a sort of software engineering manager, where one writes little or no code oneself but instead supervises a team of AI coding agents as if they are a team of human junior software engineers....
> In reality, though, the code review load for software engineers will gradually increase as fewer and fewer of them are expected to supervise an ever-growing number of coding agents, and they will inevitably learn to become complacent over time, out of pure necessity for their sanity. I’m a proponent of code review...but even I often consider it a slog to do my due diligence for a large code review (just because I think it’s important doesn’t mean I think it’s fun). If it’s your full-time job to review a swarm of agents’ work, and experience tells you they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should and bad changes will get through.
Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job. The machine takes many of the fun parts and leaves the human with more of the unenjoyable parts.
Under our new ways of working, you are required to be excited an curious about this evolution three times per day.
Sounds a lot like "self-driving" cars - "they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should".
Same thing happens here, you get complacent and miss critical failures or problems.
It's also similar in that it "take[s away] many of the fun parts". When I can focus on simply driving it can be engaging and enjoyable - no matter the road or traffic or whatever.
>Sounds a lot like "self-driving" cars - "they are good enough 95%+ of the time, you’re not going to pay as much attention as you should".
That might be an issue for supervised "self-driving" cars (eg. tesla FSD), but not really applicable to self driving cars as a whole. Waymo seems to be doing just fine for instance.
Exactly why I put "self-driving" in quotes. Right now AI assisted coding might generally be at the equivalent of Level-2 or -3 self-driving. Getting to autonomous coding agents will be like the step change that is Level-4 or -5 driving.
But isn't that what Linux admins said when Cloud and Platform Engineering became a "thing".
Puppet, Chef, Ansible they are taking the fun out of system administration, Cloud it's going to take away my job. But what happened is roles changed, SRE, Platform Engineering, dare I say DevOps engineers (whatever those are) all emerged.
Software engineering is going through he same transformation with the same knee jerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Either AI run rampant with no guardrails like OpenClaw people burning 1000s in tokens, OpenClaw calling them randomly at 2am, etc.. then on the other side of the argument we have a petition asking the Node.js Technical Steering Committee to ban AI-assisted code from Node.js core.
AI is here, it's here to stay, I believe that those of us that will be successful will find the middle ground.
I think it depends on what you find enjoyable. I think people who like the tinkering and the actual act of coding, debugging, etc. will find it less and less fun to be in this area, but people who like to look at the big picture, and solve problems, will see that they will now be better at both getting overview of larger and larger codebases and that technical debt that was never attainable to solve before can now be “outsourced” to LLM’s.
I find that fun. I work in a 50 year old IT company, with lots of legacy code and technical debt which we have never been able to address - suddenly it’s within reach to really get us to a better place.
The best way to have a big picture view of a project is to build a mental model of that project in your head. Coding with LLMs removes that ability, and replaces it with an illusion.
I'm as nerdy as they come (my current project is the fourth compiler I've worked on), and I absolutely love this new way of working. There's a lot more time spent in discussion with the agent (an extremely frustrating discussion, to be fair). All of a sudden, there's an extremely high payoff to investing in good fundamentals (namely, clarity of requirements, good tools, etc.), which are the things I want to invest in anyway! If you get these fundamentals right, you can let the agent rip and produce hundreds of PRs that are correct, or create workflows that are actually not slop or ship code that is, while not yet as high quality as if you wrote it manually, quite close, at easily five times the speed.
And throughout this, if I'm ever curious about how the ideas relate to some other topic, I can just ask the agent, "Are we designing XYZ right now? Categorically, is it this?" Lots of really cool discussions to be had.
I might be less enthusiastic if I was just shipping CSS changes and the like.
The “fun” for me has never been “coding” and on the enterprise dev side that has been a commodity for a decade.
If you look at the leveling guidelines for any tech company “codez real gud” will only get you to a mid level ticket taker.
And even then - I still read the code it generates, and if I see a better way of doing something I just step in, write a partial solution, and then sketch out how the complete solution should work.
Unless the solution is going to be more secure, faster, more stable etc, why does it matter?
Will the end user care? “Does it make the beer taste better”?
in a word, maintainability
> maintainability is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes a developer to make a change and the risk that change will break something
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/134863
i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure that end-users get upset when a change takes a long time or it ends up breaking something for them.
just because people are finding that agents or whatever are speeding changes up now doesn't necessarily mean they won't encounter a slow-down later when the codebase becomes an un-maintainable mess. technical debt is always a thing, even with machines doing the work (the agent/machine still has to parse a codebase to make changes).
What makes you think that AI couldn’t make the same changes without breaking it whether you modify the code or not? And you do have automated unit tests don’t you?
Right now I have a 5000 line monolithic vibe coded internal website that is at most going to be used by 3 people. It mixes Python, inline CSS and Javasript with the API. I haven’t looked at a line of code. My IAM permissions for the Lambda runtime has limited permissions (meaning the code can’t do anything that the permissions won’t allow it to). I used AWS Cognito for authorization and validated the security of the endpoints and I validated the permissions of the database user.
Neither Claude nor Codex have any issues adding pages, features and API endpoints without breaking changes.
By definition, coding agents are the worse they will be right now.
i have a rule of thumb based on past experience. circa 10k per developer involved, reducing as the codebase size increases.
> 5000 line
so that's currently half a developer according to my rule of thumb.
what happens when that gets to 20,000 lines...? that's over the line in my experience for a human who was the person who wrote it. it takes longer to make changes. change that are made increasingly go out in a more and more broken state. etc. etc. more and more tests have to be written for each change to try and stop it going out in a broken state. more work needs to be done for a feature with equal complexity compared to when we started, because now the rest of the codebase is what adds complexity to us making changes. etc. etc. and that gets worse the more we add.
these agent things have a tendency and propensity to add more code, rather than adding the most maintainable code. it's why people have to review and edit the majority of generated code features beyond CRUD webapp functionality (or similar boilerplate). so, given time and more features, 5k --> 10k --> 20k --> ... too much for a single human being if the agent tools are no longer available.
so let's take it to a bit of a hyperbolic conclusion ... what about agents and a 5,000,000 line codebase...? do you think these agents will take the same amount of time to make a change in a codebase of that size versus 5,000 lines? how much more expensive do you think it could get to run the agents at that size? how about increases in error rate when making changes? how many extra tests need to be added for each feature to ensure zero breakage?
do you see my point?
(fyi: the 5 million LoC is a thought experiment to get you to critically think about the problem technical debt related to agents as codebase size increases, i'm not saying your website's code will get that big)
(also, sorry i basically wrote most of this over the 20 minutes or so since i first posted... my adhd is killing me today)
I like programming for fun, but professional software engineering has never been more than very occasionally fun to me. I do it because it pays well.
Most companies use some variant of the sprint/"agile" methodology, which means that you as the programmer are similar to an assembly line worker. You don't control the pace, you rarely get the chance to actually finish anything as much as you would like to so you don't get the satisfaction of a finished product, you get little downtime in between tickets or projects to feel a sense of satisfaction at what you have done before you move on to something else.
I totally understand why businesses operate this way. It's simple: if you try not to operate this way, you increase the likelihood that your competitors will release more rapidly and take all your market share. It's the basic evolutionary logic. If you can release a decent but buggy product six months faster than the competitor can release a better and less buggy product, there is a good chance that you will drive them out of business. It all makes sense, but it doesn't result in a pleasant experience for me as a programmer.
The job is also very sedentary and it puts stress on your eyes and your hands. Of course I'm not going to compare myself to a coal miner, but the fact remains that in its own ways the job is more rough on the body than some people might expect. Meanwhile the intellectual and constantly changing nature of the field means that you can never rest on your laurels - the job requires constant mental engagement. It's hard to do it well while multitasking and thinking about other interesting things at the same time.
If jobs in this field did not pay so well, I don't think I'd ever even consider doing this as a career. It just doesn't have nearly enough upsides for me. The only upside I can think of besides the money is that you get to spend time interacting with intelligent people. But one can get that in other places.
Coding with the help of AI is a big improvement for me because just automating away the boilerplate and greatly reducing the time that needs to be spent in doing reading, research and experimentation already takes away some of the main time-sinks of the job. And while I appreciate code's deterministic and logical elegance, I've written more than enough code in my life to not miss writing it directly. I also enjoy writing English, after all. It's refreshing for me to spend my time composing precise English instructions for the AI instead of writing in a programming language. My English skills are above average, so this also helps me to leverage one of my talents that had previously been underutilized. Well, my English skills always came in handy when I needed to talk to coworkers or managers, but I meant that they had been underutilized in the act of actually creating software.
> Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job.
Completely backwards - the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions. The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
>> Another way to look at this is that AI coding agents take the fun out of a software engineer's job.
> Completely backwards - the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions.
Aren't the coding agents supposed to be doing that too? You give them the problem, they code up a solution, then the engineer is left with the review it to see if it's good enough.
> The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
That's like such a minor and easy-to-do thing that I'm surprised you're even bringing it up.
Eh, that’s not at all how I do it. I like to design the architecture and spec and let them implement the code. That is a fun skill to exercise. Sometimes I give a little more leeway in letting them decide how to implement, but that can go off the rails.
imho “tell them what you want and let them come up with a solution” is a really naive way to use these tools nearly guaranteed to end up with slopware.
the more up front design I’ve given thought to, they are usually very accurate in delivering to the point I dont need to spend very much time reviewing at all. and, this is a step I would have had to do anyway if doing it by hand, so it feels natural, and results in far more correct code more often than I could have on my own, and allows multitasking several projects at once, which would have been impossible before.
> the fun in the job should be to
man... can we not just accept that individuals have their own motivations and maybe my reasons for wanting to do the job aren't the same as yours?
The fun of the job is building a piece of software that's beautifully written. It's a way of expressing yourself
> The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
If a person needs an LLM to figure where an semicolon goes, a LLM is not going to help them code.
I don't need one to know where it goes, but it certainly is better than I am at never missing one.
> Completely backwards - the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions.
You don't need to be a software engineer to do that.
Except you kind of do -- understanding data structures, understanding software engineering concepts, all of the things that you learn as a good engineer, those are ways that you help guide the LLM in its work.
> Except you kind of do -- understanding data structures, understanding software engineering concepts, all of the things that you learn as a good engineer,
How do you learn that without programming?
I don't think kids are learning those things in 2026, they just ask an LLM.
Someone posted on here the other day about how they were taking a non-credit writing class in college so as to improve their writing, that was the reason the course existed. 90% of the class was kicked out because they were using LLMs to write for them, when the entire purpose of the class was to improve ones own writing.
Why do you think it will be any different with programming?
> the fun in the job should be
I think i'm going to let people decide for themselves what they enjoy in their job rather than pretending I know better than they do what they should and should not enjoy.
Companies aren't investing in AI because they want to solve the problem of semicolon placement. They want AI to solve problems and come up with solutions. Then they want to fire most of their programmers and force the rest to do nothing but check over and fix the slop their marketing departments are churning out.
I don't know why they'd stop at most programmers instead of all programmers. And the marketing department will also be AI. Companies want AI to remove the need for any labor so they can more directly gain money based on already having money.
They'll need at least a few programmers because AI doesn't actually work very well and fixes will be required. The marketing department may end up replaced by AI but so far marketers have convinced companies that they're so essential that even the most popular and well known brands in the world feel the need to spend billions on more and more marketing. If anyone can talk their way into staying employed it'll be marketers.
> directly gain money based on already having money.
I'm stealing this.
[dead]
> the fun in the job should be to solve problems and come up with solutions
Who are you to tell anyone what the fun "should" be?
Personally, I find writing code very fun, because building the solution is also very gratifying.
Besides which, in my experience until you actually write the code you haven't proven that you solved anything. It's so easy to think you have solved a problem when you haven't, but you won't figure that out until you actually try to apply your solution
> The fun in the job is not knowing where to place a semicolon.
This can be solved with simple linters, no need for LLMs
Exactly, the fun part is when the code works and does what you wanted it to do. Writing code itself is not fun. People forget this because they get small wins / dopamine hits along the way, a clever function, an elegant few lines of code, a bug fix, but the majority of that time coding is just a grind until the end where you get the big dopamine hit.
Fun is not measured objectively. Different people find different things fun. I enjoy writing code very much (in addition to solving big problems; one can enjoy both).
I disagree with the author's interpretation of many of their points.
> Skill Atrophy
Very true, but in the same way moving from assembly -> scripting languages degraded the skill of programmers to manage memory. AI is another tool (albeit one that's on a different level than any other transformation we've had); what matters is whether the programmer understands the intent of the code, not the 0's and 1's that it turns into. That intent is still there, we're just writing it at a much higher level than before.
> Artificially low cost
This heavily depends model to model. IMO OpenAI/Anthropic are likely the outliers here, and I do agree that it's unlikely they'll recoup the training costs for their specific models, but they also legitimized an industry - something that's hard to tangibly price. Many of the models out of China however will almost certainly recoup cost. Qwen 3 had a training price of around $1.6m USD. In the first quarter of this year OpenRouter processed around 5 trillion tokens from it, landing at around 2.5m in revenue (very rough numbers). Assuming a 30% margin, that's already 40% of their training cost in revenue for a quarter from a single platform - their usage in china is almost certainly higher.
The reality is training costs are getting cheaper. I agree that currently the top providers are heavily subsidizing costs, but that doesn't mean you can't drive revenue, they just choose not to as having the "best" model right now gives them clout.
Yeah, I agree. The first point depends on the second: skill atrophy is only an issue if you expect that coding LLMs will essentially disappear or become much more expensive. But they won't. There are companies offering GLM-5 at a profit, and it's affordable, and a great model.
The third point is moot if you run agents in a container and review their code, which you can and should do.
The fourth point is real, but the chance of it actually ending up harming people who use LLMs to write code is IMO remote.
As someone who worked on “prompt injection” before it was called “prompt injection” for an (unfinished) phd…
yeah there is only one surefire 100% fix for “prompt injection”: use deterministic solutions ie not machine learning.
----
addendum in case someone tries to make this commonly made point -- i don't use deterministic here to mean "i've pinned the ML model weights after training". i use it in reference to the probability theory stuff of training/models (the boring and complicated maths stuff).
These "truths" are more like concerns.
Skills do atrophy if you don't practice them, but also, refreshing your memory about some technology you haven't used in a while, or even learning something new, is easier than ever. You can ask the AI questions and try things out yourself very easily. Maybe "just in time" learning isn't good enough, but that's more of a concern based on speculation than a truth.
AI is being subsidized, but also, inference costs are dropping due to algorithmic improvements. For example, TurboQuant [1] looks pretty promising and even if it doesn't pan out, there are plenty of other potential advances like that. Competition might result in AI inference being available at good prices even without subsidies. So, again, more of a concern than a "truth."
Prompt injection: an unsolved mess, but perhaps curated, trusted datasets will be good enough for many projects, so you don't have to expose your agent to the open Internet? It's a similar problem to the supply-chain vulnerabilities that downloadable open source libraries have. A valid concern, but it seems like we'll improve security and muddle through?
Copyright: also an unsolved mess, but kind of similar. Search engines copy the web as part of how they work, but that didn't stop Google from becoming big tech. And sure, Napster was built on copying music and was shut down, but YouTube was also built on widespread copyright violation and it muddled through. It's unclear whether copyright law is load-bearing infrastructure for the software industry or for open source software.
[1] https://github.com/tonbistudio/turboquant-pytorch
I didn't find this very convincing. Especially the argument around artificially low cost -- we know that training the next model is the biggest cost for these companies, and we've already seen inference costs fall drastically (https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends).
Yes, Dario has publicly stated that models are already profitable if you exclude R&D for the next model.
Even if that’s not true, given that hardware and software efficiency gains can be expected to continue it’s likely that this is the most expensive the current level of intelligence will ever be.
The frontier models may increase in price, but only because they’re also more capable. If you hold intelligence constant, price should fall over time.
You can't trust anything Dario tells you: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/
The more immediate uncomfortable truth for me is that my company is requiring all developers to use LLMs, and laying off developers who won't make the switch. I'm not sure that "LLM-based AI coding agents have no place now, or ever, in generating production code for any software I build professionally" is a decision that most of us will have a choice in.
You're right about that. It's something I should have addressed in the original article, but I don't really have a solution for those who aren't self-employed. Maybe just use up a bunch of tokens on junk tasks while continuing to secretly write the code yourself? It's super wasteful, but do what you have to do to survive until the bubble pops.
The skill atrophy point strikes me as tenuous at best. Obviously, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I find myself able to work on projects of greater complexity than I would have been able to otherwise. 90% of my time is spent going back and forth on Markdown files, discussing the architecture, trade-offs, etc. I don't think it's necessarily impossible to use all this newfound power to ship more sloppier code. It's clearly possible to use all this newfound power to ship better code too.
> I find myself able to work on projects of greater complexity than I would have been able to otherwise
Yes. Now turn off the LLM and make an improvement to that code.
Exactly, this is like watching youtubers code, ie backseat coding. It’s easy to follow along but taking control midway is anything but, especially in a codebase that has been written by an agent and you don’t have any muscle-memory in.
I think what you're implying is that the agent ships unmaintainable slop. Certainly, if I don't pay attention and review the code line by line, it will ship slop. And even sometimes, when I'm certain that it is implemented one way, I'll come back to the code many days later and discover that it went a completely different route than I expected. Very frustrating.
But it doesn't have to be that way. You just have to put an effort into shipping fewer, better features as opposed to more features. The projects I'm working on (e.g. agent orchestration, because who isn't nowadays) have a small surface area and high payoff and thus are uniquely well positioned for this.
If I couldn't use an LLM, I would still work on this, and it would have roughly the same architecture. But because I'm able to go probably 100x as fast, I'm able to be much more ambitious. Or rather, I'm able to discover that my initial ideas were not on point and pivot, and not have any sense of sunk cost
Anyway, to each their own.
Totally agree with this taking on projects of greater complexity. I honestly feel the sloppier code thing is going to die soon. People make mistakes too. Always see people holding the machine to like this totally different standard.
I agree. I think we simply don't have the tools yet to hold agents to that high architectural standard. It simply takes a lot of focused effort and berating and close comprehension of the code at the moment to ship anything good, but there are lots of people (myself included) working on that problem. I'm pretty sure in a matter of months it will be solved.
Months! That's not a long time.
a real study from Microsoft + Carnegie Mellon University with 319 study participants
> while GenAI can improve worker efficiency, it can inhibit critical engagement with work and can potentially lead to long-term overreliance on the tool and diminished skill for independent problem-solving.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
it's a real problem when applied to a population.
> I recognize that it is reminiscent of a few decades ago when old timers complained about the proliferation of high level programming languages and insisted they would lead to a generation of programmers lacking a proper understanding of how the system behaves beneath all that syntactic sugar and automatic garbage collection. They won’t have the foundational skills necessary to design and build quality software. And, for the most part, they turned out to be wrong.
What if the old timers were actually right? I tend to think they were.
The copyright example is naive at best. Any AI work that has been meaningfully modified by a human can be copyrighted. So if LLM generated code is used a the starting point and it is then modified in the testing and review phases you are good. Code that has not been touched by humans is very rare.
> Code that has not been touched by humans is very rare.
i mean... it's not the most common, but it's certainly not super rare.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=i+vibecoded
508 results, yes not all of the hits are actual vibe-coded projects. but then this is just the people who are willing to admit it freely as well. so.
i was kinda hoping for TFA to finally produce some research outputs or even statistics, but sadly the `uncomfortable truths` are your usual vague talking points.
Sorry, I realize the headline perhaps implies something with more rigour than it actually delivers. I'm pretty new to writing blog posts! But if you want some actual factual data, you seriously should read Ed Zitron's blog: https://www.wheresyoured.at/
The section on "artificially low costs" does not make a lot of sense to me. If anything I feel like the costs are inflated for the frontier models, not "artificially low". Easy proof: GLM-5 costs about 1/10 as much as Opus. I'm not going to tell you it's as good as Opus 4.6 -- it's not -- but it performs comparably to where frontier models were 6 months ago. (It's on par with Sonnet 4.5 on leaderboards, though in practice it's probably closer to Sonnet 4.0.)
If I can switch to an open source model today, run it myself, and spend 1/10 as much as Opus, and get to about where frontier models were 6 months ago, fear-mongering about how we'll have to weather "orders-of-magnitude price hikes" and arguing that that one shouldn't even bother to learn how to use AI at all seems disconnected from reality. Who cares about the "shady accounting" OpenAI is doing, or that AI labs are "wildly unprofitable"? I can run GLM 5 right now, forever, for cheap.
The post is factoring in training costs, not just inference.
No it's not. Otherwise this part doesn't make sense
> in fact, they actually compound the problem by encouraging significantly more usage
because if eliminating training costs makes running the model above cost, the problem is helped by significantly more usage not compounded.
More usage compounds the problem only if inference is unprofitable.
(the article briefly mentions training but that's later).
It made sense to me understanding that you can have a unit-profitable API but lose money on loss-leading campaigns like Code subscriptions. Those losses are amplified by encouraging usage. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
But I don't need to pay training costs to use GLM-5?
Sure, but somebody needs to pay for GLM-6 unless you're happy to stop here.
Even in this hypothetical future, I will continue to use frontier models until they become "orders of magnitude more expensive", at which point I'll just fall back to the best open source model, which will still only be about 6 months behind. I don't see where the issue is?
If everybody stopped training models today and Anthropic and OpenAI were deleted from the universe, I'd be happy to just keep using GLM-5 at its current inference cost. The article's author assumes that there will be a point where we will no longer have access to good models at reasonable cost because current models are subsidized, but GLM-5 disproves that.
Honest question: Is inference actually being sold at a loss? I.e. does inference itself cost more to run than we're being charged, or are the companies operating at a loss because they're spending more on training than the margins they get from inference?
Companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are particularly sneaky about reporting numbers, but there's good reason to believe it is: https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/
Lots of claims on cost, very little data.
You're right. I did a fair amount of hand-waving, and I'm leaning pretty heavily on Ed Zitron's investigative reporting to make the case instead: https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/
i just read this before - why is it 3hrs ago?
There were no uncomfortable truths there about code agents, save one of the 4 points which was that maybe they sometimes get prompt injected if you let them search for things online and don't pay attention to where they search and the code they write. That's not an uncomfortable truth in the normal sense of "I know you don't want to admit this but..." and more just the thing that, if you didn't know it already 8 months ago, you certainly should by now.
The other truths that were not about coding agents:
--Skill Atrophy. (Use it or lose it-- another thing we already know)
--The economics of serving code agents at scale (Ungrounded in actual numbers, only OpenAI's miscellaneous statements and annecdotes. Actual cost of running code agents: last gen's mid-tier gaming gpu's will get you reasonably close to Claude Sonnet if you put just a little time in to an agent harness, and its getting cheaper and cheaper for better and better. So, at scale, with real sysadmins doing the hard engineering to eek out every last bit of performance-- well, infra needed for serving these isn't the cost center)
--Copyright. (This passed on the same bad read of a court ruling half the press has been doing for a few years now. TLDR: The Thaler vs. Perlmutter case, which said nothing about output not being protected by copyright. It denied Thaler's attempt to register *the AI* as the owner of the copyright)
I find the other article that the author refers to in his text, to be more thorough and revealing: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/
Speaking as the author of the original article, I wholeheartedly agree! :D
> There are four main issues contributing to the blanket ban on AI coding agents in my professional work: skill atrophy, artificially low cost, prompt injections and copyright/licensing.
- Skill atrophy is not a realistic concern. Every single technological advancement in human history should have atrophied the skills of people working in those fields, to some kind of detriment. Yet that hasn't happened (in any way any of us would notice). You can still find people skilled in everything that is still produced, and everything still gets produced. If nobody's made it in 100 years and only 1 old man still knows how to make it by hand, sure, that knowledge will die. That isn't true of things still actively produced with advanced technology, like agriculture, textiles, metalworking, woodworking, printing, art, music. If this was a serious concern, we would have freaked out more that COBOL programmers were becoming rare to find to support IRS/bank systems, well before AI existed. AI is not the problem, and rejecting it isn't the solution.
If you're concerned your skills will deteriorate, that's not something to fear. You can always get better at it again if you need to. Your brain isn't falling out of your head.
- The artificially low cost is not something to worry about. We have already invested so many dollars into LLMs that we could ride the current SOTA models for decades and still get way more value out of it than the money we burned to get here. The only reason trillions are getting spent now is insane business people are being insane. You don't have to spend trillions. There are several very small teams of AI labs who produce very good open weight models with tiny budgets. You can make much more money using even local AI than from not using it. The economics are there. Do the math: cost of an AI dev team for 1 year, cost of 1 cluster of GPUs to train on, is an order of magnitude less than some companies pay for their advertising budget.
There absolutely is an AI bubble, and when it pops, so will the US economy (causing a world recession, since the Saudis are also tied up in AI investment), but we will all keep using AI regardless. It just won't be Anthropic or OpenAI we're using. The AI world is already way bigger than that.
- Prompt injections are just one security concern, but they are solveable. The trick is to not use LLMs for everything, like most people are today. You don't allow the control plane to be AI-dictated. You segregate tainted data. You practice defense-in-depth. You lean on deterministic, versioned software more than prompts. With these and more practices, you can do a lot of valuable work safely, even with tainted data.
- I think copyright is dead. Unless there's a global rejection of AI in general (which I don't think will happen), the world will adapt to this new order, where everything is a mix of everything, and nobody really owns anything, IP wise. There is just no way to reject the immense value of AI trained on the world's content. The world will simply change its laws and conventions to fit around AI.
These opinions about what is going on w/ LLM development always stop short at first order effects and fail to account for second/third order effects.
> Skill atrophy
If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.
> Even if they set out fully intending to provide the highest level of scrutiny to all generated code, they will gradually lose the ability to tell a good change from a bad one
If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change from bad ones (second order effect) and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect). Seems like your "problem" is self correcting?
> At its core, the only defense I’ve got for that response is… this time feels different? Not a particularly rigorous defense, I admit, but I did warn you that this was the squishiest of the issues at hand.
Well, if you knew this perhaps it was better just not to lead with it and spend so many paragraphs on it.
> Some might argue that, even if that time comes eventually, that’s no reason not to make use of the tools that are available right now. But it should come as no surprise that I disagree. Better not to become overly dependent on AI coding agents in the first place so you’ll be better situated to weather the storm (and maybe even thrive) when it comes.
Well this argument didn't turn out to be any less squishy than the first one. It's a self correcting "problem" but you disagree and we should do X because you said so. What was the point of all of this then?
> Prompt Injection
I also think this will likely always be a problem but you can pretty much point at ANY tool we use in software development. Your viewpoint would be similar to saying we should stop using libraries because there's always going to be a vulnerability when you distribute code that somewhere in the chain a bad actor can inject malicious code even if the library was created by a trusted source in the industry. We have plenty of examples of this happening in real life. So far, still squishy.
> Copyright/licensing > I’m not a lawyer! I’m a legal layperson offering my unqualified assessment of some tricky legal questions. Let’s get to it.
Sigh, this entire post is slop isn't it? Bad look for whatever "standup for me is".
edit: Standup for me is something that is made entirely irrelevant by agentic LLMs, no surprise. The irony is rich.
The author wants to be the gatekeeper of skill, quality, and how we develop while they hand feed us slop in the form of their blog posts.
> If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.
Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain.
The OP talked about that. Did you miss it?
> If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change (second order effect) from bad ones and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect).
You're ignoring the anti-human psychological factors: humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors. The tendency will be to adopt a complacent attitude, default allow. It's not a good environment for developing a skill, compared to actually actively using it.
> Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain
If humans are expected to monitor them using the skill then obviously they are still practicing the skill and the skill is developed and maintained. Help me understand why it is so difficult for everybody with this opinion to take a another step into their premise?
> humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors
Let's assume this is true for sake of discussion: That's the job, pre-llm or not. Air traffic control? occasional errors. Software bugs? occasional errors. Department of homeland security? occasional threats
If it's hard and required that we handle the issue, then it's a skill that people will naturally exercise and the skill therefore won't atrophy.
If your argument was true we'd have swarms of people doing accounting by hand instead of using accounting tools because you're worried that the accountants will atrophy their ability to audit the output of the tools.
That's not how it works in the real world and we have plenty of examples of it...
But sure, if your argument simply boils down to "this time...it's different" like the author is arguing, then let's leave it at that. There's no value in discussing it further just like there was no value in the original post. It was just mindless slop to promote "standup for me" which is also something that falls under the category of: "things that are no longer relevant because of llms"
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]