I have said it in some prev threads but the majority of my workplaces code is written by ai today, and it's not looking good.
All implemention decisions are largely decided by claude these days.
We have so many useless tests, so many repetitive code,
Every change, even few lines long will trigger 25-50 additional files changes just because everything is so horribly written.
I have heard this was the case before ai, but it got so much worse.
At the end, I believe it comes down to 3 things: care - which before ai you had to have at least some care.
Strong leadership - the ai psychosis spreads like a desease in our csuite.
Ownership - there is none, every interaction you have about something starts with "but claude thinks that or says this"
I'm trying to understand why the C suite is reaching for AI. I mean, what is driving them to force people to use it so much ?
Is it fear of the business being copied elsewhere?
Is it because monetary incentives to lessen the workforce?
Is it just all rich people's clubs laundering the same idea that AI will solve their problems, and the Cxx come back from their retreats and make it their stance that all company should use AI because muy buddy at the golf course said it?
Is it the promise of x10 the productivity?
My company has been holding on raises for a few years, but it's open bar on AI usage. And I feel it in the reviews: some are expedited without even a human in the loop. It also outs people that have no care for the result, they push things they don't even understand. The C suite has words like "every developer pushing a MR should be able to explain why and how", and in the same week, push for full automation of the Spec -> Implementation -> MR -> Review flow.
Most, if not all, of the code in the company I work in is written by AI.
Our tests are useless. We have tests that make sure that mongoose schemas are creating the collections defined in them.
We have tests that check that zod shcemas parse objects currently.
Every PR, even if 1 line change, will drag 25 file changes because our tests are so ad-hoc, so verbose, and so incompatible with each other. Imagine how the codebase is looking...
This is a badge of incompetence for the company I work with, and prob to the entire tech world.
The funny part is? This makes our managers and investors proud, every PR is bigger, we make x3 more PRs (wheres the promised x10).
When they say this is the death of software engineering, this is what they mean.
A project I was working on for a couple years until this spring started to turn like this when another contractor started committing AI work. There was a test literally called “test_imports.py” that, you know, tested that you could import every module of the project. I asked if we could just run `python __main__.py` to test that the imports worked, but he said no, we need this for big Claude-powered refactors to make sure nothing breaks.
I believe software will go the same road as the cloth industry went. From quality cloth that holds for years, to shit quality cloth that look good but doesnt hold more than few month.
Yet, we are being sold that this is _the way weve all been waiting for_ ? what?!
If that turns out to be true I hope that there are metaphorical Japanese out there still willing to pay 30,000 yen for quality shirts while the rest of the world SHEINs out.
What a disgusting mess. Hopefully at some point people will be willing to listen to arguments in the vein of: “we spent $x dollars writing y loc that was then reviewed using z hours that did nothing, added no revenue and we then spent w additional budget removing it”
The five year project likely represents a bunch of engineers that are stuck in meetings and coordination for 75% of their time, then you staff the project with more people (because you need four times as many) then they all need more meetings to coordinate too. And then they need to write a lot more documentation in the process because in that five years the people working on the project will all turn over at least once if not 2-3 times. Never mind critical people getting pulled off the project to work on other more important things on a monthly basis as is common at large firms.
It's entirely possible for a 2-3 month project if one senior person was left the hell alone to do it to take a dozen people five years.
I assume they gonna have pull us a "arc" rag pull.
Zed is going to die 'cause they cant capitalize on it, delta is going to be sold to investors, and then zed is gonnabe closed sourced 'cause now they need it as the engine for this hot mess.
When I approach a new area or task I first explore it, by hand, and implement, by hand, the task.
This way, I get a deeper understanding and it gives me some momentum to llm the rest of the related tasks.
Till I loose enough grip to "re-dive in" that area and to again, do stuff my hand. Some tasks, I only do by hand, and some tasks, I only use llm for.
Really depends on the task, my the project and on, and honesty, my instrest and availability at the moment.
Funny to see vercel is loosing all credibility under the influence of AI.
Never liked their products anyway, so I believe it's a net positive for the industry :)
I once read a comment on hn that says that ai detection in writing is so hard because text doesn't hold enough information.
Now I'm no researcher,but that intuitivly makes sense to me. I mean, apart from the obvious cases, how can you detect ai written text?
Looking at their website, reading through abit, and seeing the comments here.
Guys, this website is entirely ai generated, which might indicate about their product some.
Not saying that they are lieing or anything, but expect a wall of text that no one really read through, and expect to (pun intended) cipher out the details.
CipherStash founder here: I'll cop it about the website - we're a small team so we lean on AI for marketing copy but this is a reminder that we need to do better.
The tech is the result of 6 years of work. We're a team of 8 engineers and have been working on it full time thanks to VC funding.
I'm obviously biased but its legit tech. We've invested in making it fast, secure and able to support most common query patterns.
Our github repos might be better than our website but I'll certainly admit that our docs/marketing needs some work!
All implemention decisions are largely decided by claude these days.
We have so many useless tests, so many repetitive code, Every change, even few lines long will trigger 25-50 additional files changes just because everything is so horribly written.
I have heard this was the case before ai, but it got so much worse.
At the end, I believe it comes down to 3 things: care - which before ai you had to have at least some care. Strong leadership - the ai psychosis spreads like a desease in our csuite. Ownership - there is none, every interaction you have about something starts with "but claude thinks that or says this"
I wish we could go back.
reply