Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Yesterday my 8yo prompted (using voice recognition) Claude to make a game where it would play her a song (say Twinkle) and she had to play it back and get scored. The UI was a nice piano with visual feedback. The laptop key served as the keys until I prompted for midi support so she could use the electric piano. The whole thing took about 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

It’s a funny time to live through. A lot of code is being written and a lot of it is going to be a real future burden.

> A lot of code is being written and a lot of it is going to be a real future burden.

This assumes that the models of the future won't find it easier to just throw the code away and rebuild it

This also assumes that the same application build by humans wouldn't become a "spaghetti mess".

loading story #49228647
loading story #49222813
loading story #49227777
loading story #49222882
loading story #49223752
loading story #49222524
loading story #49228233
And the models of the future will surely be better than they are today. This stuff is still a very long way from maturity.

Sometimes it seems like they're moving very slowly. That makes sense: It's easy to get used to how they work today and it is also easy to forget how much worse they were last year.

When we look back and realize that just 4 years ago these tools didn't really exist at all, it becomes clear that the rate of progress is rather amazing.

In 4 years, we've gone from "hah, good luck with that crap!" to "little kids writing music-learning games on their own in a few minutes"

That's pretty friggin' awesome, and it's not finished yet. :)

> And the models of the future will surely be better than they are today. This stuff is still a very long way from maturity.

Since this is Claude, the models of the future might be more expensive, or more locked down, or might decide your 8yo is actually trying to build a cleverly disguised bomb so her request gets silently downgraded to a dumber model, etc.

loading story #49223454
loading story #49223972
loading story #49225589
{"dead":true,"deleted":true,"id":49225524,"parent":49218139,"time":1786220449,"type":"comment"}
loading story #49227042
loading story #49222570
loading story #49223216
loading story #49223129
AI writes faster, so the rate it incurs tech debt is proportionally higher. However it's ability to have large context kept on memory compared to humans is also a key component fighting against it. These are occasionally forgotten when code quality of AI for large code bases are discussed. So Yes I think humans also build spaghetti, but as they write slower they get to the same place a lot later. However humans can't correct it, or can't correct it fast enough. AI can.
loading story #49218676
loading story #49227611
I wonder. I remember before emissions, what's underneath a car hood was relatively organized and simple. Then with emissions it became a maze of vacuum hoses and so much other nonsense.

then ... in some places (maybe cars that people care about working on) it became cleaner again. In the other places, they added a second hood to hide the mess.

There is some clean code out there, like maybe the seL4 kernel:

https://github.com/seL4/seL4/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4

"with an explicit goal of enabling comprehensive formal verification..." (and lots more stuff)

maybe we can still have niches like this.

loading story #49216958
loading story #49222950
loading story #49216876
loading story #49223493
She's 8 years old man cut her a little slack on the code aesthetics ;)
loading story #49223529
> Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

That is how compiler-generated assembly looks to humans, as well. Human-produced is typically much more readable. Yet, here we are. Most programmers only know the very basics of assembly programming, but the world keeps spinning just fine.

loading story #49218692
Why would code be a burden when LLMs are the worse they will ever be today?
In what world would this be a future burden? It's just a throwaway fun project lol
loading story #49224072
loading story #49223969
loading story #49223916
Those of us involved in offshore projects already know the feeling.
Picking over the theoretical maintainability of one-off tools and toys that were generated in minutes by what will soon be an outdated model, feels very...missing the forest for the trees, when it comes to speculating about the future impact of this stuff.
That's the kind of thing I learned actual programming for, at the same age.
This is the finale of Close Encounters of the Third Kind

And also the 1980s electronic toy, “Simon”

>Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess

I honestly think people on here are very much overstating 'spaghetti code' when AI does it... first, it works correct? The reason I say that if the AI can continue to upgrade code that might not always look 'the prettiest' (to you..) because it doesn't care about what some of us consider to look like clean code. If it can continue to manage, document, and upgrade the code successfully.. does you calling it spaghetti code actually matter? Maybe you have a hard time reading it but the AI certainly doesn't.. I think that's worth consideration.

Every one of us has our own conventions and ideas of what 'clean' code looks like sometimes. And honestly 95% of the time we only thing it's clean if we wrote it ourselves.

> Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

So it's on par with humans, then.

The job of code like this is going to serve as a makeshift spec for future coding agents, so they extract the intended use and redo it on command. Better models will be able to improve the actual code until you hit some diminishing returns for the problem you've solved.
Yes but it’s far better than anything anyone, let alone a small child, could make in 15 minutes

On the other hand an engineer might take a couple hours and build this in a clean way with the right prompting

These “got ‘em” ai criticism comments are getting so old

I wasn’t trying to make a “got em” comment.

The fact that this is possible and works at all is mind blowing - even more mind blowing is that my 8 yo is growing up in a world where they can talk to a machine to produce a custom application in seconds and they don’t realise how mind blowing it is!

In terms of the code, it would take even less time than that to tidy it up. For this application you wouldn’t bother. That’s almost a form of “premature optimisation” unless you’re actually planning on doing more work on it.

My hunch is that what the world is about to see a lot of is much bigger bits of work, or changes to other bigger existing systems done by people without the skills to know how to contain the complexity. That’s going to come with a burden.

The only reason it's a spaghetti mess is because it's not being prompted correctly by an expert.
Are these experts in the room with us right now? Because if even the creators of Claude seemingly can't prompt non spaghetti code (see: Claude Code leak), I'd like to know who can.
loading story #49217520
loading story #49217706
100%

A novice writing code by hand could also write spaghetti code

If you've worked in enterprise software, you might have seen that even competent professionals can write spaghetti code

At this point AI really is just garbage in garbage out

loading story #49218028
>Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

What does this even mean? Does the software run? Did you plan on extending it? Maybe turning it into a "platform"?

Why doesn't HackerNews understand software exists to solve a problem? No one cares if code is pretty if it does the job. You can talk about "potential issues" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter.

loading story #49224741