If we don't write the codebase, we don't write the tests, and the agents are modifying it, what even considered a messy codebase? Too many files? Too little files? Related code spread accros many files? What is considered a messy codebase?
Have you even seen one ever?
Also, not checking if it breaks unrelated tests is wild, good software is written by modifying the "just right" amount of code to get your result.
If you break _unrelated_ tests than you most likely didn't changed the right amount of code.
The tiem that took experienced programmers to hand over their entire development process to AI was so remarkably fast, that it got me to believe that there are almost no programmers that enjoyed solving problems.
Once, my teacher in school told me that a software engineer needs to have some sadasim in it, because it will need to enjoy the pain of being stuck on a problem. I no longer believe this is true.
Most people are in it for the money, the status, the comfortable conditions, or maybe because this is the blue collar of the 21st century.
The people who are in it for the love of the game, are very little.
While I agree with the general message, and wish it will eventually radiate to cooperations as well, it is obviously a decision driven by feelings, not logic.
The idea that you can't trust code that was generated by heavy users of AI, because _they_ don't understand it enough to fix it, is false, because they can use AI to fix it.
In general, I have hard time understanding how one might even block other contributors from using ai.
I've felt this from the beginning.
But I have yet found. A way to communicate this without sound like "that guy".
Truth is that when you give people a "do-for-me" button they are going to be clicking it like it owes them money, and that there is nothing you can say that will tame people down a bit. The truth is also that most developers are... Mediocre... They have hard time thinking, and have hard time having that hard time. So trying to convince them to go back is like saying to them "become mediocre again". And while with ai they are still mediocre, _they_ don't feel like one.
So here we are, and the only thing we can do is to wave and smile as our train is leaving the station.
But claiming that google lost it's "moral compass" just now is a claim only rich people can make because they retire, not quit.
Google is literally the largest, most organized, tracking and profiling company in the world. Which they tend to grow even larger with the rise of LLMs.
Turning a blind eye of that for the opportunity or whatever, and than claim that _just now_ they lost their moral compass, is being a hypocrite.
We need to start putting guardrails on hn to not allow those esoteric projects to be published.
Before ai, it was impressive that a person has that much passion and dedication to go down the rabbit hole, and it usually comes back with some cool anacdotes that are nice to read.
Today, it's shallow, emptied out of the content.
It's not impressive that Claude wrote it, it was impressive if you have written it, OP.
is it just me, or this model is simply not available in cc?
the opus 4.8 I assumed wasnt available to enterprise seats, but it explicitly says cc that fable is available in cc.
I can't find it, and im on latest version.
Couldn't read a single char on my phone because of how abnoxious this website it.
So many ads popping up like mushrooms after the rain.
At this state I wish AI take over news site because this is unbearable.
It's so hard to trust a vibe coded software with something with a thing as valuable as data.
I see no reason why would anyone even bother checking this out, while there a trusted, battle scared, and non vibe-coded alternatives such as postgres, duckdb,boltdb,SQLite.
I often wonder to myself if we are the teachers protesting against the calculator.
The tool is undoubtedly useful, and it has been said that calculators also removed the need to do manual calculations.
I think the difference between LLMs and calculators is inherently small. Both are algorithms. And algorithms have already were making decisions for us before LLMs, so LLMs are a natural next step of the path we were already in. Deterministic or not, I think that's irrelevant.
So, in a sense outsourcing your learning is just the natural next step. If you look about it this way, you were already doing that. We don't need to learn how to play on tools to listen to music. We don't need to learn how to do complex calculations to do them.
It's just not right to look at LLMs as different from other decision making, study decapitating, tech we already have.
Have you even seen one ever?
Also, not checking if it breaks unrelated tests is wild, good software is written by modifying the "just right" amount of code to get your result.
If you break _unrelated_ tests than you most likely didn't changed the right amount of code.
Idk I call bs.