The Programmer Identity Crisis

To me, the most salient point was this:

> Code reviewing coworkers are rapidly losing their minds as they come to the crushing realization that they are now the first layer of quality control instead of one of the last. Asked to review; forced to pick apart. Calling out freshly added functions that are never called, hallucinated library additions, and obvious runtime or compilation errors. All while the author—who clearly only skimmed their “own” code—is taking no responsibility, going “whoopsie, Claude wrote that. Silly AI, ha-ha.”

LLMs have made Brandolini's law ("The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it") perhaps understated. When an inexperienced or just inexpert developer can generate thousands of lines of code in minutes, the responsibility for keeping a system correct & sane gets offloaded to the reviewers who still know how to reason with human intelligence.

As a litmus test, look at a PR's added/removed LoC delta. LLM-written ones are almost entirely additive, whereas good senior engineers often remove as much code as they add.

This process has been affecting most of the world's workers for the past several centuries. Programming has received a special treatment for the last few decades, and it's understandable that HN users would jump to protect their life investment, but it need not.

Hand-coding can continue, just like knitting co-exists with machine looms, but it need not ultimately maintain a grip on the software productive process.

Ignoring LLMs for a second, some code I write is done in sort of full-craft full-diligence mode, where I am only committing something where I am very proud of it's structure and of every line of code. I know it inside and out, I have reasons for every decision, major or minor, and I don't know of any ways to make it better. Not only is the code excellent, I've also produced a person (me) who is an expert in that code.

Most code is not like that. Most code I want to get something done, and so I achieve something quite a bit below that bar. But some things I get to write in that way, and it is very rewarding to do so. It's my favorite code to write by a mile.

Back to LLMs - I find it is both easier than ever and harder than ever to write code in that mode. Easier than ever because, if I can actually get and stay in that mode psychologically, I can get the result I want faster, and the bar is higher. Even though I am able to write MUCH better code than an LLM is, I can write even better code with LLM assistance.

But it is harder than ever to get into that mode and stay in that mode. It is so easy to just skim LLM-generated code, and it looks good and it works. But it's bad code, maybe just a little bit at first, but it gets worse and worse the more you let through. Heck, sometimes it just starts out as not-excellent code, but every time you accept it without enough diligence the next output is worse. And by the time you notice it's often too late, you've slopped yourself, while also failing to produce an expert in the code that's been written.

Thank you, author. This essay made my day. It resonates with my thinking of last months. I tried to use AI at work, but most of times I regrettably scratched whatever it did and did stuff on my own. So many points I agree with. Delegating thinking to AI is the worst thing I can do to my career. AI at best is mediocre text generator.

So funny to read how people attack author using non-related to the essay’s message criticism.

> One could only wonder why they became a programmer in the first place, given their seeming disinterest in coding.

To solve problems. Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.

> careful configuration of our editor, tinkering with dot files, and dev environments

That may be fun for you, but it doesn’t add value. It’s accidental complexity that I am happy to delegate.

I absolutely loved this piece.

I also agree with comments on this thread stating that problem solving should be the focus and not the code.

However my view is that our ability to solve problems which require a specific type of deep thought will diminish over time as we allow for AI to do more of this type of thinking.

Purely asking for a feature is not “problem solving”.

I found this article really interesting. This is pretty much exactly how I feel about LLM programming.

I really enjoy programming and like the author said, it's my hobby.

On some level I kind of resent the fact that I don't really get to do my hobby for work any more. It's something fundamentally different now.

Full disclosure: I am old.

When I started programming for Corporate™ back 1995, it was a wildly different career than what it has become. Say what you want about the lunatics running the asylum, but we liked it that way. Engineering knew their audience, knew the tech stack, knew what was going on in "the industry", ultimately called the shots.

Your code was your private sandbox. Want to rewrite it every other release? Go for it. Like to put your curly braces on a new line? Like TABs (good for you)? Go for it. It's your code, you own it. (You break it, you fix it.)

No unit tests (we called that parameter checking). No code reviews (well, nothing formal — often, time was spent in co-workers offices talking over approaches, white-boarding API… Often if a bug was discovered or known, you just fixed it. There may have been a formal process beginning, but to the lunatics, that was optional.

You can imagine how management felt — having to essentially just trust the devs to deliver.

In the end management won, of course.

When I am asked if I am sorry that I left Apple, I have to tell people, no. I miss working at Apple in the 90's, but that Apple was never coming back. And I hate to say it, but I suspect the industry itself will never return to those "cowboy coding" days. It was fun while it lasted.

I think "Identity Crisis" is a bit over dramatic, but I for the most part agree with the sentiment. I have written something in the same vane, but still different enough that I would love to comment it but its just way more efficient to point to my post. I hope that is OK: https://handmadeoasis.com/ai-and-software-engineering-the-co...

Hi op. “Conform or be cast out” ha. Read your article then right after got an email announcing Rush tickets going on sale. Must be a sign I should go.

I forwarded your article to my son the dev, since your post captured the magic of being a programmer so well.

And yes Levy’s book Hackers is most excellent.

> Creative puzzle-solving is left to the machines, and we become mere operators disassociated from our craft.

For me, at least, this has not been the case. If I leave the creative puzzle-solving to the machine, it's gonna get creative alright, and create me a mess to clean up. Whether this will be true in the future, hard to say. But, for now, I am happy to let the machines write all the React code I don't feel like writing while I think about other things.

Additionally, as an aside, I already don't think coding is always a craft. I think we want it to be one because it gives us the aura of craftspeople. We want to imagine ourselves as bent over a hunk of marble, carving a masterpiece in our own way, in our time. And for some of us, that is true. For most programmers in human history though, they were already slinging slop before anybody had coined the term. Where is the inherent dignity and human spirit on display in the internal admin tool at a second tier insurance company? Certainly, there is business value there, but it doesn't require a Michalengo to make something that takes in a pdf and spits out a slightly changed pdf.

Most code is already industrial code, which is precisely the opposite of code as craft. We are dissociated from the code we write, the company owns it, not us, which is by definition the opposite of a craftsmen and craft mode of production. I think AI is putting a finer, sharper point on this, but it was already there and has been since the beginning of the field.