Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael_j_x | Hacker News Reader

I really enjoy coding. I've build a number of projects, personal and professional, with Python, Rust, Java and even some Scala in the mix. However, I've been addicted to Claude Code recently, especially with the superpowers skill. It feels like I can manifest code with my mind. When developing with Claude, I am presented with design dilemmas, architectural alternatives, clarification questions, things that really make me think about the problem. I then choose a solution, propose alternatives, discuss, and the code manifests. I came to realize that I enjoy the problem solving, not the actual act of writing the code. Like I have almost cloned my self, and my clones are working on the projects and coming back to me for instructions. It feels amazing

View on HN

"Addicted" "Superpowers" "manifest with my mind" "it feels amazing"

Why does it sound like you're on drugs? I know that sounds extremely rude, but I can't think of any other reasonable comparison for that language.

It's hard to take these kinds of endorsements seriously when they're written so hyperbolically, in terms of the same cliches, and focused on entirely on how it makes you feel rather than what it does.

Reading a bunch of posts related to Claude Code and some folks voice genuine upset about rate limits and model intelligence while others seem very upset they can't get their fix because they've reached the five hours limits is genuinely concerning to how addictive LLMs can be for some folks.

I think the social aspect is underreported. I think this applies even for people using Claude Code and not just those treating an LLM as a therapist. In other words, I wonder how many of these people can't call their doctor to make an appointment or call a restaurant to order a pizza. And I say this as someone who struggles to do those things.

People claim that DoorDash and other similar apps are about efficiency, but I suspect a large portion is also a desire to remove human interaction. LLMs are the same. Or, in actuality, to create a simulacrum of human interaction that is satisfying enough.

It's reflecting the value we get from it, relative to the cost of continuing if we switch to the API pricing. It is genuinely upsetting to hit the limits when you face a substantial drop in productivity.

Imagine being an Uber driver and suddenly have to switch to a rickshaw for several hours.

"superpowers" is the exact name of the specific Claude code skill. The rest of your concerns is just me expressing my excitement, as until recently I was very skeptic of the whole vibe-coding movement, but have since done a complete 180.

The drug is the llm coding. I kind of get it, when I was a kid and first got a computer I felt the same way after I learned assembly language. The world is your oyster and you can do what felt like anything. It was why I spent almost every waking hour working on my computer. That wore off eventually but I've spent some time on my backlog of projects with Claude and it feels bit like the old days again.

> Why does it sound like you're on drugs, specifically cocaine?

This has basically been what all of Silicon Valley sounds like to me for a few years now.

They are known for abusing many psycho-stimulants out there. The stupid “manifesto” Marc Andreessen put out a while back sounded like adderall-produced drivel more than a coherent political manifesto.

If I were to go off into the woods, take a lot of drugs, and write my own crank manifesto, the central conceit would be that ADHD is the key to understanding the entirety of Silicon Valley. A bunch of people with stimulus driven brains creating technologies that feed themselves and the rest of the populace more and more stimulation, setting a new baseline and requiring new technologies for higher levels of stimulation in an endless loop until we all stimulate ourselves to death. Delayed gratification is the enemy.

This is similar to how we have already found hacks in our evolutionary programming to directly deliver high amounts of flavor without nutrition, and we've been working on ever more complex means of delivering social stimulation without the need for other human (one of the key appeals of AI for many people, as well).

Of course these are all the ravings of a crank and should be ignored.

No, you're right. But a million monkeys on cocaine may eventually provide value to shareholders.

That’s like saying enjoying composing music, but not enjoying playing music. Or creating stories, but don’t like writing. Yes they’re different activities, but linked together. The former is creativity, the latter is a medium of transmission.

Code is notation, just like music sheets, or food recipes. If your interaction with anyone else is with the end result only (the software), the. The code does not matter. But for collaboration, it does. When it’s badly written, that just increase everyone burden.

It’s like forcing everyone to learn a symphony with the record instead of the sheets. And often a badly recorded version.

> That’s like saying enjoying composing music, but not enjoying playing music

Do you think that is impossible? There are plenty of people who enjoy composing music on things like trackers, with no intent of ever playing said music on an instrument.

I love coding, but I also like making things, and the two are in conflict: When I write code for the sake of writing code, I am meticulous and look for perfection. When I make things, I want to move as fast as possible, because it is the end-product that matters.

There is also a hidden presumption in what you've written that 1) the code will be badly written. Sometimes it is, but that is the case for people to, but often it is better than what I would produce (say, when needing to produce something in a language I'm not familiar enough with), 2) and that the collaboration will be with people manually working on the code. That is increasingly often not true.

> When I write code for the sake of writing code,

I struggle to understand that comparison. Code is notation, you can’t write code for the sake of writing code. You have a problem and you instruct the computer how to do it. And for the sake of your collaborator and your futher self, you take care of how you write that. There’s no real distinction IMO.

> There is also a hidden presumption in what you've written that 1) the code will be badly written

The computers does not really care about what programming language you’re using and the name of your variables and other indentifiers. People do. You can have correct code (decompiled assembly or minified JavaScript) and no one will wants to collaborate on that.

Code is often the most precise explanation of some process. By being formal, it’s a truthful representation of the process. Specs and documentations can describe truth, but they do not embody it.

You can always collaborate with markdown files. But eventually someone will have to look at the code and understand what it does, because that’s the truth that matters. Anything else is prayers and hope. And if you’ve never cared about maintainability and quality of the code, it will probably be an arduous process.

> Code is notation, you can’t write code for the sake of writing code.

Of course you can.

> You have a problem and you instruct the computer how to do it.

And sometimes that problem is not the point. Just like sometimes I write for the joy of writing, not because I particularly care about a reader or the meaning of the output.

> The computers does not really care about what programming language you’re using and the name of your variables and other indentifiers. People do. You can have correct code (decompiled assembly or minified JavaScript) and no one will wants to collaborate on that.

This has no relation whatsoever to the sentence you quoted.

> This has no relation whatsoever to the sentence you quoted.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I wanted to convey is that the use of programming languages, paradigms, patterns, and other software engineering principles is related to the human side of programming.

You can solve a problem correctly, but with the resulting code being hard to parse. Or you can write readable code but with bugs. And almost everyone prefers the latter.

So badly written means incomprehensible code, mostly due to the size of it in the case of Agents. It’s all right if no one cares about the code. But if you expect someone to review it, changeset that even the author don’t understand is slop.

So again, this presumes that the result must be incomprehensible. That is not at all my experience. It may become incomprehensible if you let it, just as is the case with human developers. It won't be if you enforce reviews, and your harness demands cleanups and sets clear standards.

Using your analogy, I enjoy composing music and enjoy playing music. I don't enjoy going through the notion of writing the notes on a piece of paper with the pen. I have to do it because people can't read my mind, but if they could I would avoid it. Claude code is like that. The code that gets written, feels like the code that I would have written

I feel this sentiment. It’s more like pair programming with someone both smarter and dumber than you. If you’re reviewing the code it is putting down, you’re likely to spot what it’s getting wrong and discussing it.

What I don’t understand, are the people who let it go over night or with whole “agent teams” working on software. I have no idea how they trust any of it.

Yep, I want to make stuff. Writing the code by hand was just a means to an end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com