Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Thank you for articulating this!! This idea has been rolling around for a while but I haven't been able to put it into words.

I think "I'm working in a higher level of abstraction" is easier for some devs to say than "I asked somebody else to do the thinking and the work." I don't think there's anything wrong with asking an LLM to do the work. But pasting jira tickets into claude is not abstraction lmao.

I guess arguments on either side of this can get difficult for a reason that another commenter already mentioned: you can use LLMs on a wide spectrum of granularity. You can one-shot a whole project, or you can tell it to rename some vars in a single file. I guess there are uses that are probably closer to programming. But if you're not even looking at the code, I'd say that's closer to somebody else doing the work

You're welcome! I'm struggling with when and how to look at the code and what really matters now. I personally work across multiple codebases that each have teams of 5-7 developers, so someone else was always doing the work and I personally never could read or understand all the code.

What I want to preserve in the AI-code-gen age that I still can form a high-level "theory of the program" and be able to dive deep and understand parts of it, both with and without AI. I'm concerned that we're headed towards a world where it's not possible to understand or modify even the simplest programs without a swarm of agents that you direct with incantation.md files.

And if you are looking at the code, you're moving too slow.
If you are not looking at the code your mental model of the codebase will rapidly degrade. Code review serves more than one purpose.
Understanding someone else's code takes longer than writing it.