People are using AI to write code. But HN is the wrong place to try to figure out how much they are using it. This site is full of bots and shills and has become a wasteland since AI. You can tell by the way they make short super confident (even ridiculous) statements in order to try to bully the insecure into buying into the hype. It matches exactly the patterns you used to see with crypto. Even the more subtle comments are often lacking in any kind of specifics. Of course there are some genuine AI users also but the point is that the overall volume of comments is completely unrepresentative of reality.
The tradgedy is that HN used to be a great place to get honest and well argued opinion and anecdotes about new technologies and the different tradeoffs etc.
I think the combination of YC being “a place for founders” and the proliferation of useless AI startups, each with its own little weird AI-booster founder, probably has added to this phenomenon as well.
I recently saw a video where one of these founders showed their “programming” setup, and it was a cashier’s microphone wherein he whispers sweet nothings to the LLM, because of course he doesn’t write code anymore (who even reads code nowadays, am I right?!). I think this is the type of individual who’s lost in the bubble sauce that ends up writing the most absurd comments around here.
How do you know these are bots and not Redditors? There's an HN sub on Reddit, and one of the hallmarks of Reddit are the 'mic drop' big pivotal one liner comments that get upvoted or cause lots of replies or engagement.
But I do feel, to reply to you, that crypto was a lot more critically received on HN than AI is right now. We're too busy debating humanity's end rather than if this crap actually works.
For those of us who actually work with technology (not product managers, executives or salespeople, this stuff doesn't work well at scale. It might in a research department at Google or a hedge fund, less so in the messy corporate world.
I can't remember when I started reading HN. Possibly as late as around 2017/18. I lost one account I had when I changed company, and this is my latest account. Obviously you can't tell for sure, but I know that I am not a bot and I know that every single developer in my company (only a few hundred) have agents writing almost all of their code. I'm in the fintech industry (trading side). I have a lot of connections from my long career in the industry. Everyone else is using coding agents too.
I don't think I could find a job in my industry if I tried that didn't want me to write code using coding agents.
Obviously I can't prove any of this, so try emailing a recruiter and test it for yourself.
From what I can tell, a lot of newly registered users are equally as vehemently against AI as there are those that are pro. I guess we see things through our own personal filter.
That depends on how you see it. I started off studying physics, but transitioned to CS. I found I was good at CS and loved tinkering, but the tinkering was always for the exploration of problems. That was always the point, not typing characters on a screen.
I admit, there is/was a certain element of enjoying the zone during development sessions. But mostly, it was the problems, not the tool.
I happened to become good at coding, and good at doing it in a corporate setting, so I adapted my habits, learned to write the best sort of code that keeps a production system solid and fast. But as I say, typing the characters was never really the point. Now a very fast assistant helps me type the characters. I guide it very closely. A lot of the time I have to correct it. Often if I know it is going to probably take a wrong direction I'll write the skeleton of the code I want, write the skeleton of the tests to prove it, and give it this as a "spec". This gets fantastic results.
Yes, it is a waste of time right now not to use AI to write code.
It's the same category of "artisan code" like "artisan cheese": you can do it if you have a ton of free time as a hobby but other than a hobby? Not worth it.
I still have to remind Ai not to use the n+1 pattern in queries, and fight it to stop using inconsistent inline styles vs classes, even within a single page.
How are people getting this "waste of time not to use AI" and "generates 99% of my code" level of code quality?
I know people's response will likely be something, something, "add instructions to memory to not use n+1", etc. But if the Ai wants to generate code this bad, then it represents an overall quality risk that would require an infinite memory file.
I've been developing a suspicion that many people simply aren't looking at what their agents produce and can't speak to the quality of it in a fully informed way.
For context, I've set up harnesses with recursive automated review loops, spec driven development, explicit lists, better models, better harnesses, formal methods tooling, etc. All of it helps, but they don't eliminate output issues. Those become very apparent when I go through the slow, manual work of deeply comprehending / validating LLM code.
And that leads me to one of three conclusions. Either my standards are achievable only by hyperintelligent programming gods, I have a skill issue using LLMs, or others aren't applying the same level of attention.
The first is obviously untrue. I meet my own standards and I'm an idiot. The second seems unlikely because I can see my competent coworkers and well-regarded people in the community discussing the same issues. So that leaves the third.
If you assume that programmers’ skills follows a bell curve, the typical output will not be better than the average. And that leads directly into your third conclusion: average programmers just do not put in the effort. That’s literally part of what makes them average.
Unfortunately most people just treat it as a job. And indeed, it is a job for most people. Not all farmers love gardening and all in their free time. It's just a livelihood. For me I like programming but honestly for my job I can't be assed to do it by hand anymore. It looks good enough, screw it, it's not like they pay me extra to produce handwritten code. When the whole org is pushing down this one path you know it's time to dgaf
It works if you neglect code quality and understanding. I've done a few vibe coded projects on my free time but I would feel shame for submitting that kind of code at work where I use LLMs more responsibly.
You previously asserted that devs repeatedly ignored specific code quality instructions, which is clearly a fireable offense. You're now generalizing out to a vague concept of "sloppy code", which is not even quantifiable.
In any case, the point is that low quality code shouldn't be promoted as the acceptable goal for AI.
The truth is people just don't seem care about code quality anymore (if they ever did?). I don't think it generates great code (yes even using the state of the art, frontier, super max pro 9000 turbo boost ++ models), but it usually generates code that works. Sadly, that's all that most of the people in charge care about. I mean shit, half the time it doesn't even have to work great, look at the state of a lot of modern software. People complain about it all the time. Quite sad, but that seems to just be the state of things these days.
I don't think corporate ever gave a shit about code quality. Honestly if there weren't building codes skyscrapers would be made with the cheapest shit that didn't collapse immediately and your house would be made of cardboard. Similarly if users were OK with buggy crap or if they had no choice (e.g. windows) then you can get away with lots of crap.
You could only argue about it when an engineer was in charge and even so when they're high up enough the pressures and incentives are to just ship fast and break stuff. Not every company can afford to be a NASA making uncrashable code that runs for 100 years and goes to pluto and all.
It’s quite an uncanny alignment with Nvidia and other semiconductor companies that benefit from their customers to bloating software and buying as many of their chips with no real thought given to efficiency of the runtime.
Probably the largest part is that this kind of code quality is not that important to a lot of devs and applications. Personally I would not describe the majority of code I work on as particularly hard, the challenge was always in getting what I needed done efficiently as opposed to getting it done at all, and LLMs are extremely helpful for that. Though I think I'm more at 90% LLM-generated code, I still do spend a fair bit of time tidying up layout (and any user-visible prose).
I agree that it's a waste of time, but I started to realize that doing it
a) puts be ahead of those people who don't, yes
b) but also diminishes my technical skills if I don't actively try to engage about what I'm "vibecoding" and proactively trying to understand it.
for your point a: writing code by hand puts you ahead of the people who don't write code by hand, eg, the people using LLMs to generate code? that doesn't make much sense assuming both of those personas are senior SWEs.
Yes, it's more like the people who agressively vibe-code and had lost interest in learning by doing, and instead are doing by vibecoding. I feel like they are starting to lose their technical ability.
The big AI tech companies are still interviewing people on manual coding tasks and deep understand, which when you're vibe coding a lot, you tend to diverge from those skills, because it's just easier to use AI to "help" you a lot.
It is imperative that the feature be shipped, damned be the quality of that which underlies its existence. And once that feature has indeed been shipped, the machine shall toil, and from its work there shall be thousands of lines born, and for the next feature: thousands more!
If you already had a hand crafted codebase, a ton of miles on it, no real issue for a long time and customers who value some metric of quality then it might be worth crafting things by hand — if only for the bragging.
Thats you, don't assume everybody in the IT world works in code sweatshops like that. Your above ultra confident statements are also not correct across much of industry.
I always write my assembly by hand because nobody appreciates the craft anymore. It’s all hidden by those pesky compilers which generate extremely inadequate code that could easily be improved by some thinking on the programmer side /s
I do think a better programmer will be a better prompter just like a better compiler engineer will be a better programmer (when performance matters at least).
What is you are writing, what is the problem domain? What does need tens of thousands of lines of code written each day?
Because 100 lines of (debugged, reviewed) code per day is a good speed for seasoned software engineer. I assume that you can produce more than 100 lines of something per day as a prompt.
So, what is the problem domain that requires one to write several thousands of lines of code per day?
My comment was to match productivity of human programmer to claimed productivity of their use of LLM.
If they write 2 (two) lines of code, the combined output of them with LLM, as I read it now, is 20K SLOC. This is yearly output of human programmer.
It is very much possible to write 100 lines of (debugged, reviewed) code per day for human. And these 100 lines of code would result, if we apply their LLM multiplication factor, in 50 (fifty) man-years of work!
Even if they write very little code, say, one line per month, after a year of work they will get result of about 6 (six) years of human programmer. SQLite is 155K SLOC, about 8 man-years.
And that what raised my question: what is the problem domain that requires so much code?
Thing is, lines of code was never a good metric in software engineering (at least it shouldn’t have been). When people talk about “~% of code” I feel certain dissonance between what they’re measuring and what they’re actually doing. I mean, you certainly want to type less for working code, sure - that’s why programmers develop high level languages.
Maybe now we should consider how to code with AI and how well/terrible different approaches are doing. Just saying “99% by AI” doesn’t sound like a good way of saying things are replaced by AI. I mean a lot of things will be replaced by AI, but at least not because of/according to lines of code.
Everyone I have talked to who uses coding agents at all now uses them to write almost all their code.
The two people I know who don’t use coding agents work in government, and in a data science company working with government.
I’d say if you work at a tech company and agents aren’t writing the majority of your code, that is weird. But if you work at a traditional company that doesn’t have Claude or Codex subscriptions, there it might be pretty normal to still be writing code by hand.
Well in my personal projects I write all code by hand because people relying on agents will have forgotten how to do their fucking job in 3 years and then it will be appreciated to have people understanding what they're actually doing. That being said, in my job ai writes the code just because it's way faster.
Your "fucking job in 3 years" will be very different, and if you don't learn how to do it in time, you won't still have a job in the computer industry.
Pick an industry where you can stop learning new things once you're out of school, because the computer industry is not one of them and never has been.
My fucking job used to be writing 6502 assembly language on an Apple ][, and I loved it, but I hope I've forgotten enough of it to have room to learn new things. If only I could forget all those hex I/O and peripheral addresses from $C000-$CFFF and the Monitor ROM routines from $F800-$FFFF, without forgetting how brilliantly beautiful Woz and and Allen Baum's code is.
Forgetting old stuff to make room for new stuff is one of the most valuable skills you can have in this industry.
The next most important skill is persistence ;) -- writing stuff down before you forget it, in a way that won't make future-you hate present-you when you need to learn it again.
You forgot to read the last line of my message, in my profession I utilize LLMs to a high degree, my point was, that in my free time I code by hand 1) because self esteem benefits from the process of problem solving 2) I want to understand the fundamentals to not feel like a fraud 3) there is no time pressure to perform.
People neglecting this side will inevitably become less proficient at their job and become rather helpless without AI, that's all I'm saying.
Yeah, I read it, and we don't disagree about your job.
You put a number on it at the top of the thread: three years until people relying on agents have
forgotten how to do the job. Copilot's technical preview was 2021, ChatGPT was November 2022, and
agents that write the majority of the code are a 2024-2025 thing. So the window you're predicting
is roughly the entire span in which these tools have existed, and the atrophy hasn't shown up in it.
For scale, the last ARM I wrote was for a Sony Clié and the last PowerPC for a Mac, both more than
two decades ago. If I needed to write ARM for my Mac now, I could brush up about as fast as I could
on the 6502 I mentioned upthread, most of whose opcodes, $C000 I/O addresses and monitor ROM entry
points I genuinely cannot recall any more. Two to four decades of not touching an instruction set
didn't cost me the fundamentals, and it hasn't made me less proficient in Python and TypeScript or
helpless without AI. Three years of using a good tool is not going to do it either.
There's also a distinction buried in your last line, because "people neglecting this side will
inevitably become less proficient" bundles two different things. Losing a skill you had is not the
same as never acquiring one, and only the second is an argument about tools.
So take acquisition. I've been learning PDP-7 assembly in order to recover, OCR, and analyze 128
pages of PIXIE assembly source and octal machine code that Heinz Lemke wrote at Cambridge in the late 1960s,
and get it running in an emulator. A language I never knew, with custom instructions for bespoke
networking hardware, no Stack Overflow, and almost nobody left to ask except Heinz himself. AI has
been extremely helpful for exactly that, and the understanding is still mine to build: I have to
predict what the machine will do, and catch the explanations that are wrong.
On feeling like a fraud: the test isn't whether you typed it, it's whether you can predict what it
does and fix it when it breaks. Plenty of hand-typed code fails that test and plenty of carefully
reviewed generated code passes it. Your reasons 1 and 3 are good reasons to hand-code, since
problem solving is genuinely fun and nobody is waiting on your free time, but reason 2 is
measurable, so measure it instead of trusting the feeling.
The atrophy you're worried about is real. It just isn't caused by the tool. It happens to people
who stopped wanting to learn, and that predates AI by decades, even millennia. I watched it happen
back when much of the industry ran on assembly language.
If you're not using AI to teach yourself new things, you're not holding it right.
You're not wrong and it really comes down to how the tool is used. People wanting a quick solution, thus skipping the learning process entirely out of either complacency or because they feel like they don't have the time or energy are more at risk of atrophy I'd assume.
Personally the tools have simply gotten too good to ignore so I have been thinking about how to write skills and prompts in a way that enable me to keep learning, overcoming friction and challenges and not simply using the tool for hand holding and jumping straight to the end result.
For me personally, what matters is the process of learning and mastery, my self esteem depends on it, and enriching that with AI instead of AI eradicating that process for the sake of efficiency is my current challenge.
The thing is I think there will come a time when AI tools will not be as accessible as they are now. I just don't know if it is in 3 years or more, because the market can stay irrational longer than I can foresee.
I saw this idea from elsewhere that the things AI helps with was never the "profit bottleneck" of companies. 10x engineering productivity gain does not translate to 10x more revenue if your profit bottleneck is customer acquisition and retention. In other words, your profit is limited by how many people are willing to give you money for your services and AI can't really affect that.
And even the productivity gains per individual is a generous assumption. An individual can only prompt (and check! You guys check right?) so much. Sooner or later the pendulum is gonna swing in the other direction and it will be cheaper to build a team than equip individuals with AI _to deliver the same value_. I'm also assuming that AI is still in the VC-subsidized pricing stage.
Hence why I think the job in the future is gonna be pretty similar to the job four years ago.
> The next most important skill is persistence ;) -- writing stuff down before you forget it, in a way that won't make future-you hate present-you when you need to learn it again.
Huge amen. Another thing I've found Claude very useful for is writing documentation for legacy systems and cleaning up my own notes on it. I only need Claude to be 70-80% correct because from there I can take it. That error margin is no different from moderately-outdated-but-still-useful documentation.
When that pendulum swings, I will have a documentation binder that I will print money with.
> The thing is I think there will come a time when AI tools will not be as accessible as they are now
I am very convinced that today's SOTA level will be accessible 3 years from now, but you might be right about the SOTA accessibility at that point in time.
Still with today's SOTA you need to know much less details to be able to write code than without it.
My (arguably not very directly communicated, true) actual point is that "weird" is a term that is not really suited for tool choices like this.
"Weird" is a social concept. It's an artifact that has its roots in social cohesion and friction induced by individual nodes to glue the group together.
Software development otoh is an engineering discipline (or.. it should be).
And Engineering does not use the local social consensus algorithm for determining correctness. (or.. it should not)
I think they just meant its weird as in if you met a software dev at a dinner party who was still writing all their code by hand it would raise an eyebrow and you’d want to enquire further why that is.
I think understand the purpose of this comment. I think you're sensing friction and you'd like to reduce that by explaining for the other guy. Which is a common social script, but one that is being exploited here I'd say.
But, regardless, what is interesting I think is the scenario chosen there. Because a "dinner party" is not where engineering happens; and that's kinda the point I was getting at.
That's pulled from the pool of "social consensus" and not "math" or "physics" or whatever.
It's interesting, isn't it?
Just like how specific tokens in the context window of LLMs pull probabilities towards specific clusters of ideas (and tokens); with humans, you see similar things happen.
(This comment is more coherent than it might look at at first sight.)
___
Anyway, point (and to the point) is: Don't get hacked by the current thing fraudsters/grifters.
They don't respect you or me or really anyone the slightest. They're just in it to get rich quick (or simply just inflict psychological damage for sadistic reasons), and they will use any means necessary to do so.
This comment chain only exists because some hype guy is trying to induce FOMO into people for not doing more AI.
Why is unclear, but it's clearly malicious. Whether they consciously know that they are doing that doesn't matter for that assessment.
I think LLMs just allow you to get to where you want to get to quicker. So in a productivity oriented world it seems weird to not be making use of them where those gains can be had.
Let me try another analogy:
AI-related comment sections are like a watering hole for both get-rich-quick grifters, but also bad people wanting to hurt others.
The technology is so disruptive that there are all sorts of opportunities while stuff is still developing, things aren't regulated, and people themselves have not yet learned how to self-regulate.
So if you're looking to make money or to just inflict pain onto others, you're pulled towards this stuff.
This is what I am seeing in this specific comment sub-tree. A troll.
But in current year, you cannot just call people trolls, so instead you get these elaborate meta comments that bypass the anti-anti-troll defenses, but get so abstract, people just go "what".
My advice would be to view any of these comment sections through a zero-trust lens.
Godspeed. We will all eventually get through this.
Software can be an engineering discipline doesn't change whether it's a human doing it or AI doing it.
Arguably engineering is something AI should be really good at since you're just trying to compute a working product given constraints, formulas, resources.
Maybe "unusual" or "uncommon" would be better terms here.
I definitely wouldn't put it at 99% of developers, but I'd say it is the norm among developers I know that agents are their primary mode of writing code now (still using IDEs and GitHub to review changes).
I'm seeing another team doing this, with 99% agents, and quality, predictability of delivery and raw performance have taken a massive nosedive.
But even not caring about quality: Speed of development is abysmal. It was never something this team had anyway, they were always slow. So they don't care that they take a year and 20 people to do what another startup in the same space was able to deliver in a few months with a skeleton crew (and perhaps more quality).
To me the experiment has shown the results it should. It's self-serving to developers, and amplifies the good and the bad in them. It's not particularly good to users and not to companies if the developers aren't good themselves.
It's writing nearly all of the code where I work. It also reviews all of the code (I review it as well). You still have to guide it and hold its hand though. I dont write code by hand anymore (and haven't in almost a year). The job is now about managing the bots, understanding the architecture and keep everything aligned.
That’s a norm at my place as well. But it’s not free. We have definitely given up on quality (both code and general stability) and fully understanding what’s going on. People are generally working more as well, because of all the layoffs pressure.
Industry is betting that we don’t need to. I still consider it a bet because Claude Code this scale has become norm just for a year.
An agent writes 99% of the code. Then I fix some parts, re-arrange things, usually takes a few prompts. Then, there's code review, more changes, etc. But I hardly write code nowadays compared to a few years ago.
The vast majority of work people do is basically supporting simple CRUD type apps.
CRUD apps have long been a solved problem long before AI, no one should be spending a lot of time dedicating their life to figuring out how to write a better CRUD app.
If your bubble consists of writing critical high performance applications or bleeding edge research, maybe you have a use case for not using AI, but that is not the norm.
I don’t think this is true at all. Maybe if you have an agent writing some of your code it will be 99% because its so verbose but I don’t think the modal software engineer is a vibecoder.
The certitude with which you condemn your peer without the slightest consideration for subtlety or alternate explanations for what you've understood to be true -- this comment is such a beautiful encapsulation of the state of discourse today. In some ways it is the modal comment of the moment. Tastelessness and mediocrity and inability to grasp nuance or feign at humility are on full display, not to mention a fantasy for violence
How is that the same thing at all? You didn't understand the comment you replied to and were confidently wrong. The person replying to you understood what you were saying very clearly and didn't make any ridiculous "you may not last long" comments like you did...
I think this is an uncharitable misinterpretation of the parent comment. I took “modal engineer” to mean “the statistical mode of engineers”, not a misspelling of “model engineer”. Which means I think you’re in agreement that using AI to write code is not necessarily vibe coding and that vibe coding is not what the majority (mode) are doing.
AI is just another way to not use your brain, I think there’s plenty of consensus around the fact that not using your brain makes you dumber.
So actually, yes you can say that definitely.
Unfortunately I was like this long before LLMs, trust me ;)
And yes I know it's a word, I know at least two meanings it has but in this particular usage I was not familiar with it. Anyways, I was wrong and I will take the L
Yes, those are not conflicting statements. All rectangles are not squares after all. If you can reply to me and actually put the point that you are attempting to make into words I would be shocked. Give it a try!
> People said Devin, the AI coding agent, was garbage in 2024. Now it's weird if an agent isn't writing 99% of your code.
I have two comments to this statement. First, using "the" suggests being unique, where in fact there were several similar attempts of similarly low quality, including open-source autogpt even before that.
Second, Devin is still bad, in spite of VC money spent on its development and costly billboards in SF.
That will probably change sooner than you think. Now that it's commonly accepted* that AI has reached AGI status there are already movements to grant legal personhood and rights to it, which would mean legal liability for its actions. Eventually we get to the cyberpunk trope of entirely autonomous corporations that only ever hire humans for gig work and pay them in femtobitcoins or something.
* I'm not arguing what that actually means, much less, whether or not that has actually happened, just that it's what people believe, and as we are a belief-driven culture rather than a data or fact driven culture, that belief is what will drive policy.
That sounds like a horrific dream than anything. How will you even punish an AI model? I think the cyberpunk trope is a bit out of touch from reality, but a lighter version of it can definitely happen where we do get AI companies and entire board coups replacing CEOs with AI for short amounts of time, but in the end people (both consumers and investors) will want something to blame and punish properly, and they will also want control (realistically if you told any of the big people in the AI scene you're replacing them with a model they will definitely reject and claim they are needed for the company to prosper)
In addition this will probably only happen on America as most movies take place lol
You’re mixing things up. Coding is work while managing is status. Management will force the peasants to use any pitchfork management wants. But giving status and power away will never happen. It’s obvious that there enough managers to replace with AI for positive outcome. Bet it will never happen.
we aren't anywhere near lights off software factories, and writing software is easiest domain for modern llms, you can verify results rather easily, plenty of training data etc.
So you're right to be skeptical as of September 2026. But September 2028? It might just be weird to run companies without AI management.