saadn92

You think you're learning things at a pace you never imagined, but all you're really doing is learning superficially. You never really go deep into things, and it "seems" like you're learning faster, but how much can you actually recall of the things you learned? By the way, I'm saying all this because this has been my experience. I can prompt like no tomorrow asking questions, but I forget most of it because it's not deep learning. I'm not actually thinking myself, I'm allowing the AI to think for me.

If it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is.

there's someone already doing this: https://github.com/malisper/pgrust

How do you use AI on a daily basis, and are there times when you don't?

It’s hilarious to me that when you stop investing in juniors and seniors who use your AIs retire, what are they going to do then?

I made a streak/goal tracker that tracks the things I want to work on like being more grateful, working out more, and learning.

yep, even people I thought educated voted for this fool. seriously, they have college degrees, but apparently get their news from random social media accounts

We should be able to do something around this problem. I don't know myself, but I know there's a lot of smart people on this site and if we all came together to work on something, surely there could be something we can do for this problem.

I use claude code on a daily basis, but honestly it becomes more annoying the more I use it. Why? I think because I ask it to do something and unless I'm extremely specific, either the code is verbose or the feature I'm designing is done in a poor way. For me, the productivity gains aren't that great and I'm even considering whether to go back to doing things by hand to save myself the frustration. Sure, if you don't care about code quality or scalability, it's a great thing to generate code. And yes, there are times when I don't, but for real projects, I actually do because I know as an engineer those things do matter in the long run. So, to be honest, I still haven't had that moment.

I disagree. There's cases where girls do better and cases where boys do better. This blanket statement is just as bad as saying that all men/boys are smarter than girls.

Bugs did exist, but bugs that come from AI generated code can be easily avoided if a good enough engineer designed it. Also, the rate at which AI generates code means that there's A LOT more bugs now than there used to be.

I read most of the article and came to the conclusion that if what they're describing is so revolutionary, then why do they still need to hire people? Why not just have these systems take full control?

Well, whether it’s a good piece or not is a different story, but I guess for me it makes me think at least time was spent on it, rather than most AI slop I see nowadays, but who knows, I can be wrong.

I personally don’t enjoy it. I want to read another human’s thoughts even if it’s filled with mistakes, because at least it’s not fake.

exactly! after a certain time, you get to a new normal and you want something new or better in life. nothing wrong with that though.

It comes down to perspective tbh. For someone who's worked hard labor throughout their life, the cushy tech job you get is actually worth doing forever. But for people who have never experienced that, I can see why retiring early makes sense, but honestly most of us get to work from home and do our jobs on the computer, which doesn't require much. It's still an amazing career to be in IMO

my guess is: the ENGINEERING problems they solve are harder, but they're still just video games at the end of the day, compared to something that solves an actual business need.

People also used to say that Google or calculators will make you dumber. Neither happened. Won't happen with this either.

Nothing stupid about caring deeply about tools that shaped your career. GitHub wasn't just a SaaS for a lot of us it was where we learned to build. The fact that you're emotional about it says more about how much you gave to that platform than anything else.

Ghostty will be fine wherever it lives because people follow the project and not where it's hosted. Best of luck!

I agree with this sentiment, because the person directing the agent can still direct it in a way where it'll produce a better or worse output than another person directing it.

What gets me is the craft point. I've shipped more useful software in the last year than probably the previous five combined, and most of that is because I stopped treating code as the artifact and started treating the product as the artifact. The craft moved up a layer.

until it is clear and elegant

New grads who spend weeks refactoring code are going to get lapped by new grads who ship something and iterate. There's just a faster feedback loop now.

ha, github is down too

The irony runs deeper than the free analysis offer. The whole Mercor contractor relationship was this exact pattern: hand over studio-quality voice recordings and ID scans to get paid for data labeling work that didn't require either. "Explicit consent" was buried in the terms, and people clicked through because they needed the paycheck.

Now 40k people have learned that biometrics aren't passwords. You can't rotate your voice.

That's a pretty good swap if you're Microsoft. Exclusivity was already unenforceable in practice, and they were going to have to either sue their biggest AI partner or let it slide. Instead they got the agi escape hatch closed and a revenue cap that at least makes the payments predictable

[flagged]

Hard disagree. I feel like I'm thinking a lot more now because I have so many parallel projects going on at the same time. AI has allowed me to really, truly create in a way that I've never done before. Yes, my coding skills probably aren't as sharp as they used to be, but my system design skills are at an all time high. Don't blame the tool.

This is similar to what we see in software architecture. There's a team that picks a framework or pattern early, then builds everything on top of it, and by the time evidence shows up that the foundation was wrong. Now, switching costs are so high that it's cheaper to keep building on the broken foundation than to start over. The amyloid hypothesis reminds me of technical debt. The "cabal" wasn't conspiring, but they were just rationally protecting their sunk costs, same as any engineering org that can't migrate off a bad database choice.

The real answer is probably simpler than anyone here is making it. Apple hardware margins are healthy enough that selling macbooks to linux users is pure profit, so no services lock-in needed. However, the moment they officially acknowledge Linux support, then it becomes a support surface. Every kernel panic becomes a genius bar visit. Every driver bug becomes a tweet at @AppleSupport. It's the value of plausible deniability. The Asahi team being unofficial is actually the best possible outcome for Apple in that they get hardware sales to Linux enthusiasts without any support burden.

It's crazy. I have something like 120 personal tools at this point and the pattern you describe is exactly right. The bottleneck moved from implementation to context switching. I started keeping a markdown file at the root of every project that captures state and next steps whenever I stop working on it, purely so I can resume without the 20-minute "wait where was I" tax.

There's just no pressure to handle edge cases or write docs for people who'll never use it. Just solve exactly your problem and move on.

This is what keeps me coming back to HN. Someone spent years recreating woodcut prints pixel by pixel on a quadra 700 using aldus superpaint at 512x342. I feel like the constraint is what caused it to be. The 1-bit forces you to solve every gradient and texture with pure composition, which means you can't cheat with color or resolution. I forgot who said it, but constraints breed creativity.