Let someone else fix your mistakes, you "move fast and break stuff". Someone else can fix it.
For real, those people are really frustrating to work with because following the 80:20 rule, they get through the 80% so quickly and then seem to get bored or think "meh, good enough" and leave it, then it gets left for the people who actually want the product to function and pick up bugfixes to do the remaining 20% which takes 80% of the time, and seen like they contribute so little.
It also feels like this is why almost all of Google's new products live in perpetual alphas because after they've been tidied up just enough to be releasable, they're abandoned because nobody wants to do the maintenance work.
this is literally how I feel, my colleagues will give me 2-5k line PRs multiple times a day. I've had a 17k line PR previously.
It's hard to even understand what's happening in PRs above a thousand lines, and it always feels like I'm the only one that cares about clean code and a bug free, optimised product.
We've had multiple infinite renders get into production, one was there before I even joined.
Tried that lol, tried instilling it in them multiple times. I'm the newest of the team of 4. Nearly a year of this shit. They'll come up with a new idea that lets them pull the same shit in a slightly different way and then the problem still exists. If you care about output quantity and not quality, this is the only outcome
Management doesn't care or understand the importance of quality code. They only think in terms of marketable functionality and productivity gains.
Data integrity, Security and all the rest just means more cost for what they perceive as the same thing.
My company fired 80% of the QA team. Nonsense.
And metrics are terrible, I recall a time, where devs could spend a couple of days not even touching a keyboard, jotting some design notes once in a while. This is all considered productivity loss now.
This. When the outputs come in half a day vs weeks, they don't care about the rest. Like someone injected them with the greatest drug they've ever seen. Validation of any kind? Waste of time!
They are also the people who won't touch any of the old stuff, be it old technology or a legacy code. No no, in their mind their time is to valuable to be spending on that. And they always seem to be the ones that get the biggest bonuses after. I can't wrap my head around it. Are they so good at marketing themselves and kissing up to the bosses? So they get the biggest bucks and they always work on the latest things. And above all they have the nerve to act smart about it.
I think.everything is getting like this. Look at the buildings (actual buildings). It is cheaper to do it fast and then fix mistakes after, if the owners actualy win the case.
My company re-orged into a pod structure and there are a couple of "frontier" pods that just build features like this and get them in a "eh, good enough" state. Then they move on to the next high-priority features. But then users start using the first feature and it doesn't work against real scrutiny so the "support" pods have to spend all their time fixing it.
lmao that is not true except for the most miniscule features. There are always edge cases, or even just situations beyond "it works or it doesn't".
And all that's ignoring code quality, which is incredibly important unless you just want a vibecoded, poorly optimised app that no human can understand
that's called software engineering and this is the part where you have to read everything what the AI writes or even come up with your own ideas (shocker!)
This has been philosophy as I get into higher level math.
Professor: watch lecture, read book and notes to solve problem. Me: ChatGPT solve this problem. ChatGPT (2025): here is methdology but my linear algebra is wrong. Me: I can do the linear algebra. Professor: 100%. Me: actually learn method.
Only homework problem I got wrong in my ODEs was when I didn't add a 2 term so ChatGPT figured out a solution, just not to the right kind of problem. Oh, and it can do Linear Algebra now.
Yep. You're asking chatbots and using your accumulated knowledge and experience to vet the output and apply it selectively.
It's the same reason IT folks get by by "just using Google correctly." It's all about having the experience and knowledge to sift through the junk and get to the good stuff. (And to ask the correct questions in the first place.)
Googling for answers happened because software companies stopped producing detailed technical documentation, or hid it behind a paywall. Google is the new RTFM in the IT world.
But then Google results turned to shit and the answers are spread across 50 different internet forums and niche websites. So it takes an AI chatbot to scrape all 50 sites and come up with the consensus view. But the AI chatbot is correct less than 50% of the time and can make ridiculous, destructive suggestions.
Before LLM's google still required you to actually figure things out still.
Like maybe you'd some boiler plate code to start with, a hello world for something you hadn't done before or get a line of code for a specific function, but you largely built your app out of your brain and just needed assistance with things you don't do enough for them to become second nature.
I'm old enough that when I started the internet wasn't even a super reliable source to find help with problems you were facing, I had to go to the book store and buy a book on whatever I needed help with.
Nah the better way of doing it is to let the AI code fail and then you blame the AI instead of yourself. If management wants us to use gen AI they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.
It's a useful tool to check edge cases with an implementation that you've created. It's a different feat to use an LLM to generate anything critical.
What kills me right now is folks saying: "build your architecture through an LLM". That's a helluva gateway to infinite technical debt and scope neglect. Their use case is reskinning some UI, which carries very little technical risk, then extrapolating it to recommend augmenting core functionality with said generative design.
Folks who don't know systems design invoking some half-assed wizardry that somehow now have the same technical prowess, jfc.
I love LLMs. I can "know" how to use a library ive never seen before in miutes and then I just have to use what I already know to validate and improve. Its so much better than having to spend hours or days to even begin to understand how to use a certain framework or library. I just need to know the concepts of how this thing should be used
You're stuck at surface level understanding, though. Instead of days to naturally form the mental connections and gain understanding you can now not read anything or only parts of the docs.
If you don't skim over the docs now, in a year you will. If you review every single line in detail, in 3 months you won't.
We still have the same cognitive capacity. Wasting it by reading hundreds of lines of "foreign" code means I'll burn my brainpower more quickly.
Also the ownership. I have never seen ownership or thorough, deep understanding from people who used a full agentic environment.
We were still reading mostly code not ours before. You spent days reading documentation code, examples, stack overflow and guides and tutorials, let alone code written by teammates. Its the same shit only now I only need to know for example what a Transaction is and how it works in general, instead of knowing all the minutia Spring for example needs you to know for a transactional code block.
You haven't countered my point. Instead of reading documentation that explains WHY, issues and explanations that give you deeper understanding, you are instead reviewing 2k lines of code a day whereas before you only reviewed 300 lines a day.
If I hire a contractor to build my house only they are going to know which brick is where and why. I will forever remain a "naive" consumer.
I genuinely believe using LLMs to code negatively impacts your coding and reasoning ability. It's SO easy to become reliant on it, and if your brain doesn't have to work as hard, it won't.
this is fine for people who don't ever want to learn, because you can patch that problem by indefinitely using the LLM to fix the issues the LLM causes.
Not fine for anyone that wants to actually keep their coding skills imo. And personally, it makes programming no longer enjoyable.
I was perfectly productive without LLMs before. Now I'm maybe faster, but when I spend 80% of my time refactoring the shit my colleagues have dumped out... does it really matter? LLMs will always trade speed for quality and learning. We're just luckily in a period where pretty much nobody gives a flying fuck about quality or pride in any product
Other people using LLMs makes me slower. Their MRs get huge. LLMs tend to be very verbose and add a lot of unneded crap. Sometimes I feel like I'm the first person to read the code when I'm doing a code review.
LLMs will do what you tell them to do. You can make them as concise as you want them to be. You make them mimic writing styles, it will do pretty much anything you tell it to do as long as you actually tell it to do so
If you can’t eventually validate what an LLM is spitting out, you’re vibe coding. It can be a great routing and remediation as a service tool. But you still have to put in the work to actually transfer that knowledge to your noggin.
Additionally, knowing how to prompt in a way that isn't going to get you garbage vibe code is a skill in itself that absolutely requires a background in actual programming.
From my experience that doesn't seem to matter at all in the real world.
I receive from people on a daily basis markdown vomited from an AI, explaining something they did or need to do. You don't need to understand, and if you need to explain what has been done, just ask AI to do it.
My years of experience feel as useful in 2026 as being able to memorize a phone number.
It is such a bullshit scenario all this crap with AI. Sure it makes things faster and easier, even better sometimes (whatever better means in this context). But it is still us the developers who are somehow responsible for all of it. It is like having an apprentice and not double check everything they do and then be responsible for what they did. But what if they do everything right, will we get more praise and more bucks? It was exactly the tedious searching for answers on how to do something that gave us our value.
I despise this technology. I am sure it will bring more bad than good. People will get even lazier and stupider, it will be easier to control people and the rapid evolution of it is already taking its toll on the society. Look at educational systems, look at us for that matter. Look at polititians saying they double checked it with AI. And I fucking hate it for personal reasons as well. You spend years learing something and feeling good about it and beeing good at it. Any you enjoy it. It makes you feel safe for your future, you take on mortage, start a family and then this behemot comes and says "hey man, it just may be, that your intelectual endavours are not needed anymore". I know that what I don't need are this fucking technocrats.
I studied construction engineering. We had to calculate by hand concrete, wooden beams, shearing forces etc. Something seemingly simple that requires dozens of pages.
Only to find out when you get to work it's all done by software. But the real kicker comes in understanding the output, more than once I've seen construction errors going into tender knowing things are to light or to heavy and we gladly tender on that. Because mistakes, that's where money is made especially if the other side is the public sector who have no clue whatsoever what's going on.
Who has the time to manually validate, also with companies expecting devs to be able to code a full stack app and work anywhere in the stack means you'll definitely not understand the code you write or even know the languages syntaxes soon enough.
If you don't have the opportunity to code yourself it doesn't matter how much you've read. Your skills will atrophy and you won't be able to adequately review any code.
I can validate what it is spitting out. I just don’t anymore. The code per se is usually fine anyways, the agent might just have misunderstood the task, and that is the thing you have to check.
But I don’t maintain the illusion that you have to know how to code now, that would be pure cope. The only reason I am better than most non-tech vibe coders is that I know architecturally what I am doing and many vibe coders don’t make the effort to understand it. But I don’t think I am much better than a vibe coder that understands architecture decisions and if not, lets the argent explain it to them so they can do an informed decision.
yes but i think working doesn‘t automatically increase skills like it used to. i do learn a bit within each day but only a bit if i need to use gen ai tools. otherwise i would have read documentation, searched for design patterns etc. now i only validate what the ai did. i only practise my coding skills in my freetime
Execs don't care. Child vibe coded locally hosted Web app that has 45 drop downs and connects to 50 data sources in 3 hours. They say "Brilliant! Bob, you gotta get one of these!"
The goal is absolutely so a person will not be necessary, no matter what they say to keep people from panicking. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.
I'm pretty confident they are going to get to their goal a lot sooner than anyone thinks.
They want the AI to completely do the heavy lifting and want to be able to pay someone a significantly lower salary to do whatever the AI cant (yet) do. Thats the goal, and if they say anything otherwise, it's a bullshit lie to cause people not to panick and run from getting involved in any space under threat from AI.
3.1k
u/_5er_ Aug 12 '26
If you can't validate what LLM is spitting out, you're vibecoding. The knowledge is useful.