adamddev1

This is a really important point. Honest question, have we ever seen LLMs doing or creating something truly novel or innovative? I mean they can patch together proofs (or functions/programs - same thing via Curry-Howard) by broad searching existing lemmas they can piece together, but create something truly novel and insightful? That seems to be the limit?

> The world has changed; AI is reliable; we need to adapt.

Yes, but I think it's important to state that it's only reliable for things that are very well known and extensively written about.

> But now you can do that work to an ±80% quality level of the old, manual way, but in 1% of the time.

But what happens when the 20% quality margin that we lost aggregates over different layers of infrastructure and compounds into brokenness and chaos?

It's a corruption mentality. They assume everybody else is cheating and lying and everything is broken, so it doesn't matter if they lie, cheat, and break things. The important thing is what you can get away with and what you can get: apps that make money, features shipped to satisfy managers and get the paycheck. And then never think about the long term consequences. And a big part of this mindset is ridiculing or belittling those that care about doing things properly. This is the same mindset that is present in areas with high levels of corruption.

I am also tired of the argument. Yes, people made messy, buggy things before. But AI agents provide away to create messiness and bugginess on an ever increasing scale. And just because things were bad before doesn't mean we should accept making them worse.

Or if the codebase becomes too broken, messy, and bloated to run or manage, people might realize that the crazy Anti-AI people weren't so crazy.

Exactly. How do they now that the spec that was generated was correct? Is the spec also AI generated, and could the models lie to make a spec they can verify, just like they lie to make tests pass?

It is also interesting how the LLM optimists are leaning on tools like Rocq and Lean to save them from the mess of uncertainty and confusion. These are tools created by people who understood their code and worked with deeply with type theory etc. People can keep thinking they can get away with making products from vibes, but down in the infrastructure they still have to depend on people thinking and building carefully.

It is hypocritical to campaign for "nobody will look at code anymore" while depending on the hard work of people who carefully look at code.

I think "no one will build their mental muscle like this anymore" is a bit defeatist. I am still pushing myself coding new and challenging things by hand, not using AI at all for it.

Very cool and thanks for sharing! It's inspiring to see that yes, one person can build something like this. And of course it does NOT have that immediate AI feel. Just a glance and you can feel that it is a true, original work of art. It's also sad to think that so many will not be learning as much as you did thinking this all out and coding by hand.

I think we need to keep pushing back against this idea that "now it's the AI coding era, everything gets coded with AI." Let's keep building things, especially passion projects carefully by hand and normalizing this. Lots of us are still coding without AI.

I disagree. Code can be/was more malleable if it's designed well, especially with pure FP. People kept on moving away from messy abstractions and OOP and more towards this idea of pure functions and composition, creating more robust and malleable software.

Now instead of aiming for robust, malleable code, people are throwing up their hands and saying, "It was always a mess, let's just keep throwing more tokens at it."

Oh man, the memories that music brings back. N64 was magical when it first came out. We used to rent it from Blockbuster Video for parties with friends.

This is little glimpse of how incredibly manipulated LLM results can be. Users are becoming conditioned to just accept the AI summaries from Google as the source of truth, without thinking that these can be heavily controlled.