[flagged]
> We still require a code review for any change and it's becoming a bottleneck - for sure
> I fought for years trying to convince my colleagues to write good commit messages. Now Claude is writing great commit messages but since *I'm no longer looking at code* - I never see them. I don't think Claude uses them either.
(emphasis added)
I have almost certainty by now that half of the web is just bots steering the narrative of humans, because I’ve never seen so much non sense being normalized in my life. Dish soap drinking level I mean.
In a way, obvious injected opinions benefit culture, by making formerly-unaware readers skeptical.
Pretty sus, bot or otherwise.
Lots of tech companies are doing just fine with purely AI written code at this point.
Saying that the quality is getting worse in some immeasurable way (while incidents remain the same) is literally unfalsifiable.
What we do see publicly is OSS projects overrun with poor submissions, for example.
It is like saying "no one can produce a viable CPU because I can't tape one out in my garage."
If there are so many, surely you or one of the other AI supporters have a public example?
I’m aware of two examples, although they’re (mostly routine) translation with existing test infrastructure, so easier for an LLM:
- Bun’s rewrite, although we haven’t seen the effects on further development
- Ladybird’s rewrite, which seems to be continuing fine
I don't know what the Bay Area note is supposed to mean in the context of the whole post - unless you want to reinforce that it surely means that it's a sane take... In which case, I'm not certain the non-Bay readers would agree that it comes from an unbiased culture.
1) Since vibe coding GitHub has frequent outages and isn't able to load a large number of comments.
2) The slop translation of Bun resulted in immediate bugs (https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/30719) that the hyped Mythos apparently did not find.
3) AI features and (likely, though not proven) AI code resulted in a 0-day in Google code:
https://projectzero.google/2026/01/pixel-0-click-part-1.html
The house of cards is beginning to collapse.
A common one: "I have stopped writing code, the world is going to end"
Another: "I will code by hand, I don't care"
Another: "I use it as a tool, but the hype bothers me so much that I have to bitch and moan from morning to night"
This one is: "I have stopped writing code, it wasn't the end of the world."
Which is the pathological take?
It’s irrelevant and unrelated.
vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.
People write code differently, AI models write code differently, AI systems write code differently, companies create systems that write AI-written code differently, etc.
The system that wrote Bun bears no relationship to the system that writes OP's code.
Making such absolute statements about AI-written code is as dumb as making absolute statements about human-written code on the basis that it's "human-written".
It's plausible that OP's company is succeeding with 100% AI-generated code, even if Bun fails, but it's also plausibly false. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, what separates BS from reality is evidence.
I didn't write that Bun's rewrite absolutely proves or disproves OP's claim, I wrote that it provides evidence; it does, much more than OP's word.
It's also plausible that OP's claim is true, but only because despite being in a "big tech" company, they've been working on small self-contained repos, throwaway scripts, etc. The implications of this would be much different than what their comment suggests, which is another reason evidence matters: it forces them to narrow their claim, because anyone can make an overzealous claim from a small example.
That’s very different than converting a massive codebase one-off to an entire different language, while depending on tests to keep it contained.
Scale and process is dramatically different than the Bun case.
Imagine old school machinists saying to a CNC machinist “Ha! See, maybe you don’t jog the axes manually, but you still have to be involved in placing the stock material, and you have to do the CAD/CAM work - so did it really machine the part for you? No!”
AI is a tool like any other. It has its limitations. It has classes of problems that it is suited to handle, and others it isn’t. If it’s true that they haven’t written (as in “typed out by hand”) a single line of code, why can’t they say that without you making that statement into more than it is?
I haven’t written a single line of code in 6 months, and that’s simply fact. It is also true that I put in a lot of other work to make that feasible, but that work isn’t in the form of writing code.
“it’s mature and the next step of engineering”
Tautologically, it’s mature enough for what it is mature enough for, and it certainly is the next step in the same way that CNC was the next step for machining — if you’re not using it as a machinist, you’re going to produce less compared to those who are.
Same thing with garden hoses. Yes, you can go fetch water from a lake and splash it on your lawn, or, you know, you could just use a sprinkler connected to your garden hose. Doesn’t replace buckets. Buckets just have a narrower scope in a world where garden hoses exist.
A garden hose vs a bucket is also the same situation. You can accomplish the same thing with either, but one might be more labor intensive.
AI is nothing like either of those. It would be like instead of a bucket you get a garden hose that points in a different direction every time you try to use it. Or instead of a 5 axis mill that rigorously executes the g-code it just randomly reinterprets tool paths each time it cuts a part. Both of these things would be worse than useless in their respective applications.
AI is different because it plays to the pliability of the software domain. Even fairly shitty, irreproducible results can be good enough for software development, if you don't look at it too closely. Make analogies to the physical world at your peril!
And also adds a multiplier to your water bill
The same with AI you still have to hold it and point in direction to be useful.
It also had a logical stopping point in automation tech.
Ai is trying to do everything and wont stop
Because it's a solution looking for a problem. All the AI companies lean in to coding because it actually helps with that to some degree but the amount that it helps doesn't justify their valuations. It needs to be good at everything to justify their target IPO price.
The one you respond to is an obvious bot, new account only posting comments saying how great AI is for example.
No need to look further.