Hacker News Reader

> like AGILE and SCRUM

Yeah, likely

> development patterns that are good practices.

Wait, now you lost me

while those things sucked, patterns imprinted on devs minds, passed on from generation of devs to the other until that's just the way things are done. CI is a good example, as are some of the documentation practices. Lots of teams that don't use agile or scrum formally, follow those concepts because that's just how they've seen others do things in the industry. I predict, LLM work will get some overdone and abstract thing like agile/scrum that lots of people hate, and few thing is useful, but then out of it the actually useful bits and pieces become self-organizing standards of sorts.

> The rule of thumb is: An agent can write it, but a human has to understand it before it gets pushed to prod.

The article essentially claims that no, that line of thinking is false. If the agent writes all of it (or too much of it, where "too much" is still not well defined), then your ability to understand it will atrophy with time, and you will either a) never push to prod, because you can't understand it well enough, or b) push to prod anyway, and cause bugs and outages.

I think the article is correct.

> I'm still not convinced about the doom and gloom over developers being replaced.

Agreed. The agents are just not good enough to write code unsupervised, or supervised by people without senior-level skills. And frankly it's hard to imagine them getting there. Each new release of the coding tools/models is a mixed bag. Some things are better, some things are worse, and the gains are diminishing with each iteration. I am afraid that we're going to hit a ceiling at some point, at least with the transformer architecture.

> but for now we're all just reading random blog posts and see how others are faring and experimenting.

Yes, exactly, and many people are not faring well. The article cites several examples of people feeling less capable after using LLMs to write code for a while.

> I think the article is correct.

What I said doesn't contradict the article. if what you said is true, then since a human can't understand it well enough, that approach is not good according to my rule of thumb, thus agreeing with article. I only established the litmus test.

agreed on other points you made.

  > standardized like AGILE and SCRUM

perhaps too cynical, but if its anything like agile and scrum in $CORPORATION it will just add to the daily slog and gum up everything...

That's exactly what I predict as well, I think it's inevitable. there will be middle managers and project managers needing a stick with which to beat the LLM mess into order, and keep themselves relevant, and it will suck all the same. But even such efforts result in establishment of good practices. In attempting to discredit the "slog" devs will establish "but instead, we should be doing $X".

i would hope so, as long as "good practices" really are good (for what thats worth anyway).

again, maybe overly cynical but ime "good practices" usually end up getting warped into "bad practices" caused by cargo-culting/up-selling by consultants as they try to mass-produce a new dev paradigm