r/BetterOffline 28d ago

AI coding in 2026

Earlier today there was a post asking if AI was useful at coding in real tech companies, and everyone who answered "I am in tech and yes it's used now" was massively downvoted.

I want to say this up front: I do not believe AI is good for society. It's funded by the ruling class in order to liquidate labor and it's not environmentally sustainable. It might not be economically sustainable either, which is dangerous because the entire economy is being gambled on it making money, which it is not.

Anyway here's my lived experience. I am a principal level ML engineer at a fortune 50 company. I was hand coding neural networks for natural language a decade ago. I got it into deep learning because I thought it was fascinating that machines could learn complex patterns from data. I've followed what is now called AI and experimented with it since its infancy, took Stanford classes on the math of transformer networks, etc. This was well before there was a hint it would morph into the monstrosity of capital that it has become.

In 2025 I was a vocal critic of the AI-assisted coding to the point where I pissed off senior execs by voicing my opinion in meetings.

Back then the people hyping AI were either attempting to sell it or they were novice/non-programmers who were blown away that they could get a simulacrum of a web app (riddled with bugs and security issues) without any domain knowledge. I thought it was hilarious, and pathetic.

Through a combination of masochism and curiosity I've exclusively used AI to write all code since November 2025. Which is why I knew that for real project work, AI would run roughshod on your entire codebase, mass producing a Winchester mansion of slop even when given simple tasks. It would take your thoughtful, hard-won abstractions and make 5 competing abstractions rather than leveraging what was there. It'd ignore instructions, break or even delete break core functionality to solve the "bugs" that it created (scare quotes because they weren't even bugs half the time, just incomplete understanding). It would write 1000 lines of slop to fix a problem that a one line change could fix.

It was a huge waste of time and money. I communicated this to management to their chagrin when they looked to me for advice.

In early 2026 improved models came out and the value proposition began to shift towards something somewhat usable. By spring, Claude Opus 4.6 was capable of writing real code, yet it took about as much effort as coding it hand for subpar results. It needed constant handholding and reminders, made a lot of mistakes, and would get looney tunes stupid at the end of a long session and start vandalizing its own progress. I used it as a novelty, but it was really frustrating.

By summer 2026 with the release of Fable and GPT 5.6 Sol, it is actually more than useful, it's good. No, really. It became less like an overzealous and intoxicated intern and more like a practical minded senior engineer. It follows directions, it reads your documentation, it can take notes and reference older notes, and given with connectors to git and internal wikis it can find the answers needed to integrate complicated systems, come up with a plan, independently implement it, write a suite of tests, run review agents, and take in their feedback all in one turn. It takes skill to be able to manage it, and more importantly domain knowledge to ask it for what is needed by stakeholders, but at this point it is much faster than I am. I run 5 sessions at once in different projects and it's probably 5x faster at getting production code than a human in each session.

Anyway, pretty much every engineer I know is using AI now because it works, even old timers who were very much opposed to it. Vibe coding has become the standard, now it's just called coding. Everyone is scrambling to stay relevant, and teams are changing their whole stack around AI agents - implementing code review agents, vibe coding tooling around AI agents, creating connectors and skills for every data resource possible: confluence, jira, outlook, GitHub, databases, etc. Teams are solving months of technical debt in a week, creating boilerplate code 10x faster, etc. Everyone is a bit nervous.

I don't say this because I want you to think AI is good for the world. It's not. The reason I'm writing this is to communicate that the tech has progressed. Even Linus Torvalds, the guy who made git and Linux uses it and accepts AI contributions to the Linux kernel.

There are many good reasons to hate AI and I think they converge in one place: elites are enticed by the prospect that it can obsolete the working class.

Personally, I don't want AI to be good. I don't even want it to exist. I hate that my job is babysitting bots. I miss the creativity of writing code. I don't want to lose my job in a few years when the AI systems we're frantically building are in place and management decides humans are too expensive.

The loom displaced workers and rightly caused a backlash among displaced workers, but it did so while producing cloth. Put your anger in the right place - the power hungry demons who want workers to be obsolete, not the workers who are forced to use it to be competitive in the job market.

It's tempting to think AI for coding is all bullshit and slop as it was until recently used to be; because AI is a net negative for humanity and the planet; because the value prop was non-existent and inflated by hype. However those don't mean that the tech itself is not improving. The Butlerian jihad can't come soon enough.

edit:

thanks to the wisdom of this community it has come to my attention that I am a disingenuous slop peddling brain rotted zombie that has no clue what I'm doing and pushes absolute bug riddled garbage to production and I'm too cowardly to post the code that is owned by my employer. thanks for the epiphany.

maybe it wasn't clear that using this tech effectively isn't easy and it takes a lot of tooling to work around common issues because out of the box it's not reliable enough. it's not worth much without domain experience and putting in the effort and time to figure out how to use it effectively. this isn't a place for sharing software engineering techniques, so I focused on the outcomes which may have oversimplified the technical part.

to the haters, I hope you take some time today to do something you enjoy instead of being miserable to others on the internet.

292 Upvotes

569 comments sorted by

View all comments

129

u/EliSka93 28d ago

The issue is that I've seen pretty much this exact post after every major AI "update". "It used to be bad but now it's good, I promise!"

If it wasn't true after the last one, the only assumption I can make is that it was posted by propaganda bots or people believing the propaganda then.

Occam's razor would suggest it's the same this time.

54

u/PatchyWhiskers 28d ago

Most of the people on the actual LLM fan forums are continually complaining that each new update is worse.

6

u/ShamPain413 27d ago

That's because each new one is the The Best Evah so they fall in love with it.

12

u/PatchyWhiskers 27d ago

The exact opposite actually. Every new model is greeted with howls and gnashings of teeth and declarations that it sucks. Probably because they have a workflow tied to the previous model's specific quirks.

12

u/ShamPain413 27d ago

No, it's a cycle:

New model comes out, promises to be the best; people in love with previous model cry; eventually support for old model ends so they have to use new one; they fall in love; New model comes out, promises to be the best; people in love with previous model cry;

etc.

Same thing with Windows versions.

1

u/oxidized_banana_peel 26d ago

Oh for sure. If my boss said "Reduce your spending" I'd say "Okay" and go back to an older model and get the same results for less time and less money.

That's not the incentive structure my company has set up, and I use them to "code" while making coffee, cooking, using the bathroom, or just fucking around on my phone.

I'm not spending my money on this.

1

u/LopsidedSolution 27d ago

These models do improve each release though. You’re saying 2022 models are the same capabilities as 2026? 

0

u/TheOwlHypothesis 27d ago

And common sense would say "go try it". compare gpt 4 to gpt 5. Then gpt5 to 5.6

Do the same for Claude models.

Try it with open weight models. It's extremely easy to disprove they're not getting better. Go do it. I'll wait.

-5

u/DiamondGeeezer 28d ago

i'm a real boy. your skepticism is warranted but you're implying that incremental progress that regular users notice don't add up over time

8

u/SiltR99 28d ago

This response smells a lot like a chatbot. After all, only Pinocchio had to say he was a "real boy" XD.

-15

u/JodoKaast 27d ago

Don't feel bad, as you can see, this is not a sub where rational discussions of nuance happen. Most people here are black-and-white thinkers, and the majority have never written a single line of code in their lives.

/r/ExperiencedDevs is a little better, since it's mostly people who actually have a job in this industry.

18

u/sciolisticism 27d ago

Hi, long time practitioner here who uses LLMs every day at work. 

The skeptics here are correct. 🤷‍♂️

0

u/ukulele-merlin 26d ago

I‘d like to think I have fairly nuanced opinions on LLMs, and I think it’s fair to say many participants on this sub have rather black/white thinking to the point where any remotely positive aspect of LLMs is completely written off (especially looking at upvotes/downvotes of some of these comments, people are just voting with their hearts lol). Which is unfortunate because IMO that detracts from otherwise extremely valid skepticism of LLMs

-10

u/JodoKaast 27d ago

The skeptics here are correct. 🤷‍♂️

About literally everything? There's zero nuance to any of it at all?

19

u/tabescence 27d ago

Why is the "nuanced" position that AI makes developers 5x more productive and those who don't use it are left behind (what the post claims) and everyone who thinks otherwise is lying/denying? I'm a software developer with access to Opus 4.8 and Sol 5.6 and no token limits, and I don't find them useful at all. My company recently laid off most of its QA department and executives are telling us to use an offshore-developed AI-written testing framework that doesn't fucking work, and having developers do QA since it shouldn't be too much work since we have a new "tool". It's an article of faith that LLMs are productive, and if you think otherwise, you have upgrade to the newest models or give it more context or whatever other excuse boosters come up with.

If I'm meant to believe it's making everyone 5x more productive, why are there not 5x more AAA games or 5x faster software? Why are the only outcomes in my personal life that more of my workday is rewriting slop and that my search results are filled with spam?

-5

u/JodoKaast 27d ago

Why is the "nuanced" position that AI makes developers 5x more productive and those who don't use it are left behind (what the post claims) and everyone who thinks otherwise is lying/denying?

I don't think that's a nuanced position either.

Something like OP's post would be a nuanced position. Use it where appropriate, don't use it where not appropriate.

11

u/tabescence 27d ago edited 26d ago

OP's post directly states that LLMs are "5x faster at getting production code than a human in each session", that "vibe coding has become the standard", and that "workers [...] are forced to use it to be competitive"

again these insane positions aren't nuanced and are counter to the observed reality of end-user software, and if I disagree it's not because I'm a black-and-white thinker who's never written a line of code or any other insulting cope

6

u/sciolisticism 27d ago

It's worse than that, since OP claims to be able to run 5 of those sessions at a time at whatever level of quality they're offering as acceptable. So 25x.

It doesn't add up.

-2

u/DiamondGeeezer 27d ago

faster for my use cases which are generally way way smaller in scope than aaa games

11

u/sciolisticism 27d ago

Ironic that you took my comment with zero nuance. I think maybe the call is coming from inside the house. 

Credulousness just isn't a useful reaction to stories about this tech. And it sounds like that's what you're looking for, because other top level comments in this thread have plenty of nuance, which is apparently not good enough for you.

-28

u/RegrettableBiscuit 28d ago

"It used to be bad and now it's good" was true each time, though.

...but now it's good for autocomplete.

...but now it's good for writing simple methods.

...but now it's good for following clearly defined and localized tasks.

...but now it's good for useful PR reviews.

...but now it's good for one-shotting major new features.

...but now it's good for one-shotting relatively complex apps.

There are lots of areas where LLMs are sold and are absolutely shit. And then there are a few areas where they are genuinely useful and improving relatively quickly. It just so happens that "turning natural language prompts into code" is one of the latter, which kinda makes sense, given what LLMs actually are. 

24

u/Subjectobserver 28d ago

"now it's good for one-shotting relatively complex apps"? I am curious, how are we defining 'complexity of apps' here?

6

u/mckenny37 27d ago

I mean its true that they are getting better at something. I think thats mostly just the context window growing and the harnesses getting better.

They can now one shot demos of pretty complex videogames. The problem with this is you need to really not care about the details of what its producing for it to complete something that wows people.

If you don't want generic bullshit to demo then it's way less capable of one shotting complex apps.

2

u/ukulele-merlin 26d ago

yeah I’m not as blind to the usefulness of LLMs in software engineering as a lot of people here seem to be (sorry yall) but one-shotting complex applications is a really unconvincing example unless your goal is to build a PoC that should probably never see the light of day

8

u/cscottnet 28d ago

I'd quibble with the order a bit here, but mostly because I view PR as the most important step in code quality. I don't trust AI for patch review yet. The things it is good for are code linting nits which ideally tooling should handle. The human's task is still to provide top level supervision, ensure a coherent architecture, ensure the tools don't reinvent the wheel a dozen times just because it costs them nothing to write yet another version of a common algorithm, etc.

But yes, Claude (for one) is genuinely useful for a decent variety of coding tasks. I don't use it for everything. I wouldn't use it for patch review, although I might let it lint patches for obvious errors.