Not if you turn off your brain. Never actually stop to question the path you're going down, because the speed is making you blind. Which is what I feel I see more and more. Or how do you even know it's the wrong answer if you didn't think it through before starting?
One example: setting the agent ablaze on some task, keeping it going, and after a few days of working with the agent you have a feature. But it's not what you were supposed to make. The agent didn't have all the context and made something slightly off, and you never internalized the problem enough to even spot it. If you actually stopped to think a bit on how the feature would have to work to tie it in with everything else, like you would have done before, you would've spotted it.
Second example: something wasn't feasible to do before, due to not being worth the time investment. Like a feature that would need a bigger architectural change to implement. You and the agent take a crack at it, and rewrite huge parts of the code, and it seems to work. But now no one understands how, and it might have been the wrong way to solve it, you just went with it. Before, you would've sat down and discussed and thought about the architectural tradeoffs. Now one decision was just made with little thought.
Counter argument is you rarely hear of sunk-cost fallacy coming into play.
I used to do the same thing without AI, I'd spend a week working on a task and only realizing at the end it was wrong, but because I spend so much time on it, I was incentived more to keep going and ignoring sunk-cost.
Now I don't care, it only takes me a an hour and I have no problems throwing it away and trying something else.
This feels even more true working with a team. I have a harder job convincing a team member who spent several days manually coding something that they’ve headed in the wrong direction compared to one who built it with AI. The person doesn’t have a personal attachment to the AI written code. Of course that also means they don’t understand every line like they would if they wrote it manually, but the lack of attachment is certainly a benefit.
> I have a harder job convincing a team member who spent several days manually coding something that they’ve headed in the wrong direction compared to one who built it with AI. The person doesn’t have a personal attachment to the AI written code. Of course that also means they don’t understand every line like they would if they wrote it manually, but the lack of attachment is certainly a benefit.
If the situation that you have to convince a programmer to stop working on something is something that happens more often than very rarely is in my opinion a strong sign of bad leadership. These are people who are really in love with what they are doing and are thus so attached to it, and you want to cast out this love for working?
So, the moral that I can only get from your post is:
- AI can be used as a mitigation for bad leadership.
- Programmers should care much less about the work that they do.
No. It’s a healthy practice to build prototypes and spikes to resolve technical uncertainty. These should be considered disposable.
Sometimes people get attached to the prototype, and that’s counterproductive. The most common example is “nice job, the 2 week spike shows us that this project is not viable, we are canning it and moving on to a more impactful project”.
> Now one decision was just made with little thought.
I've seen the same behavior using AI. They just keep double it down without seeking human feedback nor asking themselves if there's prior art tackling the same problem. At the end, they don't only get into sunk cost fallacy but also go into a shadow IT journey achieving generational tech debt in a few weeks.
If you didn't allow yourself for a feedback loop venue and constructive feedback from peers, AI will not solve that issue.
"nor asking themselves if there's prior art tackling the same problem"
Asking AI is asking for prior art to not invent the wheel yet again.
It’s much harder when team dynamics start coming into play. Maybe this is something where the norms will change, but for now, it’s still much harder to stop someone from shipping something they have built than to offer corrections to what they’re going to build.
On the other hand there should be some actual cost of changing everything.
I see people ship a half baked feature then spend the next weeks ripping and replacing huge pieces causing all sorts of issues
I dunno. You've heard of "build one to throw away", right?
Always easier to discuss what the client actually wants if you've got a demo on the table.
I'm doing short feedback loops with product owners more and more - sometimes within the same sprint. I'm not even getting bikeshedding back, but that might be because we have some fairly solid design guidelines.
Or, you don’t even realize it’s not really what you wanted. Once you have a nicely polished product, it’s hard to compare it to the fuzzy idea that you had in the first place.
I feel like going slower gives you time to let the details form the solution. You think “hm maybe that doesn’t make as much sense as I thought, maybe there’s a better way to frame the issue…”. If you don’t let a problem really soak in, you don’t get the “hammock driven development” that Rich Hickey talks about.
Of course some problems don’t need to soak in. A lot of problems just need code to be cranked out. I love slopping together a monster script that solves exactly one problem perfectly
It’s like discussing a fully rendered concept art. You will get lost in the picture. And there’s always the slight suggestion “it’s already looking so nice, why think harder”. Which is why sketches and roughly painted thumbnails are best for brainstorming. Easier to think out of the box that way.
Same with demo. Do a rough wireframe or something with default bootstrap style and it’s way easier to target the meat of the problem. Not so much on a full site
> Or how do you even know it's the wrong answer if you didn't think it through before starting?
Real life is full of unknown unknowns, AI risks putting you on the wrong path without you even realizing it.
It doesn't help a bit that (almost? I'd say all) AI products are very confident while they're guiding you on that unknown unknown path, so of course that you don't realize soon enough the epistemological situation said AI product has driven you into.
Its not the engineer's responsibility to figure out if you're building the right thing. That's the job of the managers and product owners.
I’ll claim the ones in the end that will have that responsibility will be engineers. LLMs add the ability for engineered to build quickly enough that there’ll be enough of them to morph into product roles as well. I trust us/them much more than product owners who use models to code.
Much easier to engineers to move to product than product to move to engineers. Or at least the minimum amount needed to fill all product roles. I’m seeing we can do that now and it’s _much_ more efficient to not have to have back and forth communication as in the past with that communication being by far the slowest part of build processes.
> I’ll claim the ones in the end that will have that responsibility [to figure out if you're building the right thing] will be engineers.
One can have this stance. But in practice, programmers who have strong opinions on this topic that is not aligned to the management wishes will commonly become personae non gratae in the company, and are thus commonly on the brink of getting fired.
So, in the end, the incentives that exist in most companies are strongly biased towards the position that figuring out if you're building the right thing is the job of the managers and product owners. :-(
I can agree with this as well. But I'll do a follow along for who says management has the best and correctly decided plans for the company? What if in the future, engineers become product, and those then become management because who's to say that's more difficult?
For the way orgs are currently set up, yes, conflict between engineers and management can cause issues. I'd put somewhat of a bet that those types of org setups won't be the way in the future.
And how do you think many of those managers come up with the ideas nowadays?:) There's no human in the loop anywhere at FAANGs. I see it first hand. LLM ideas, LLM docs, LLM coding, LLM launch announcements...
In theory sure, but in practice an engineer who can steer managers and product owners can have a massive impact on the outcome.
Tell me you're a bad engineer without telling me.
If you don't understand what you are building, chances are you'll take suboptimal decisions or even come up with a solution that completely misses the point.
To properly understand what you are going to build, it's not enough to read specifications from some manager as gospel. You need to ask questions, and challenge the requirements sometimes, to make them your own.
> To properly understand what you are going to build, it's not enough to read specifications from some manager as gospel. You need to ask questions, and challenge the requirements sometimes, to make them your own.
Many managers don't like being challenged. :-(
Eh.
If the engineer is told to build a bridge that is virtually guaranteed to collapse, then it a reasonable person ( ideally, same person as engineer ) would note that particular risk.
It may not be engineer's responsibility to build the exact right thing, but it sure is their responsibility to build it right without having the bridge to collapse the moment someone stands on it.
Otherwise, the person building the bridge is not an engineer.
> Otherwise, the person building the bridge is not an engineer.
One is likely not an engineer if one does not notice the risk. But in practice, managers commonly desire docile subordinates, so the only thing an engineer can do in such a situation is to ensure that a paper trail gets generated that will be capable of breaking the manager's neck once the disaster has occurred. :-(
[dead]