larsfaye

> The claim you should know everything about everything you work on is an intensely naive one.

Author here. Where did you find I was stating that? As other users said, that's not at all found in my writing. The rest of your post goes on a tangent about this notion, but seems like its more of a personal pontification, rather than a critique of anything I wrote.

Author here. Thank you. I absolutely was not stating that, and I don't think its possible or necessary to "know everything", but there's certainly a movement in the industry (and not a small one) that is advocating to abandon even looking at code. It started with Karpathy's "vibe coding" tweet and has extended to now where entire teams are performing "LGTM" level code reviews, while simultaneously reporting that they are finding it difficult to remember how to read, nevertheless write, code properly. "Thinking in code" is a form of thinking that is distinctly different than staying at the higher engineering levels of planning and architecture, and yet they are completely intertwined and interdependent. I plan better when I am engaging with code, and I code better when I know how to plan properly.

Yeah, I can't help but chuckle when people say "Well, humans make mistakes, too".

That's what we're spending 7+ TRILLION dollars, destroying ecosystems to build datacenters, and ruining society's social contract on truth and employment for? To build something that produces the average quality of a human, all while making the same types of mistakes along the way?

Sounds like a shit deal, really.

Author here....

"An increase in the complexity of the surrounding systems to mitigate the increased ambiguity of AI's non-determinism"

I'm referring to the layers of review that are needed to be put in place to reign in the fact that the code that is generated is blurry and obfuscated, and in amounts that exceed what someone can review in one or two sittings. I'm seeing multi-phase AI review stages that will try and distill review finer each time. Then another agent layer to document. Then another to create a PR. Then the human reviews, but uses Coderabbit locally. Then sends it back into the pipeline and round and round we go, all because there's simply too much volume of code to review.

Author of the article here (had no idea someone shared it! Just found out through analytics).

I actually mention this exact thing it the article under the section "LLMs accelerate the wrong parts", which seems to be saying exactly what you're saying:

https://larsfaye.com/articles/agentic-coding-is-a-trap#llms-...

I would find it hard to believe there is any developer in history ever uttered the words:

"I really wish I had a tool that could generate code I don't understand, and at a rate faster than I can review".