Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

We're in the wrong moment

We're in the wrong moment

52 comments

·October 27, 2025

yes_man

Just putting aside the bold assumption that LLMs do make coders obsolete or coding unnecessary, it is possible to find similar joy in the end result as one does (or did, given the article) for programming itself. Focusing on what kind of tools or products are being created, and what problems are being solved, and together with LLMs achieving that goal better and faster than without them and finding joy in solving problems this world has. That’s typically why anyone would have paid you to code anyway even before LLMs.

Of course in reality there’s weird economical mechanics where making the most money and building something that benefits the world don’t necessarily collide, but theres always demand for and joy in solving complex problems, even if its on a higher abstraction level than coding with your favorite language.

heddycrow

Choose your own adventure:

1) you are using coding assistant too much - you aren't yet ready for the Senior role that requires. Advice: chill out with that and get back to coding solo

or

2) you haven't used coding assistant enough to realize it's an idiot savant grade Junior to Mid programmer. Advice: use coding assistant more and then see #1

Real talk: all moments suck and all moments are wonderful. Source: have lived through few computer moments.

What a time to be alive!

doug_durham

This seems to romanticize the past. I've been doing this for 40 years and I don't see that much has changed. I would code even if I didn't get paid for it. That said I've always seen writing code as a means to an end. I use GenAI every day to write code, and it brings pure joy when there's boiler plate that I don't need to write so I can focus on the fun stuff. There is zero value in me writing yet another Python argparse routine. I've done it and I've learn everything I'm ever going to learn about it. Let me get on to the stuff that I don't know how to do.

mattikl

That's certainly a more positive way to look at this. Working software has always relied on having people who grok the code, and this happens by spending a lot of time thinking about the code while writing it. And it's undocumented, because the nature of it is something you cannot really document.

If AI is writing all the code, how do we keep the quality good? It's so obvious with the current GenAI tools that they're getting great at producing code, but they don't really understand the code.

We don't really know how this story unfolds, so it's good to keep a positive mindset.

hinkley

I've seen a lot change. I used to have a seemingly bottomless list of things we are doing wrong and about half of them have dropped off in the last twenty years. Did they all turn out as well as we hoped they would? No. I don't think a single one did. We are half-assing a lot of things that we used to laugh off entirely. In most of these cases some is better than none, but could be a lot better.

What I worry about is that my list has gotten shorter not because everything is as it should be but because I have slowed down.

Quite a lot of things on that list were of the "The future is here but it's not evenly distributed" sort. XP was about a bunch of relatively simple actions that were force multipliers with a small multiple on them. What was important was that they composed. So the benefit of doing eight of them was more than twice the benefit of doing four. Which means there's a lot of headroom still from adding a few more things.

spockz

Okay I get the desire of not wanting to do repetitive stuff. It appears doing this with an llm scratches your itch. Before the same - focusing on the intrinsic complexity instead of the accidental - could be achieved by using libraries, toolkits, frameworks, better compiler (plugins), or “better” languages.

What plagues me about LLMs is that all that generated code is still around in the project making reviews harder as well s understanding the whole program source. What is in there that makes you prefer this mechanism instead of the abstractions that have been increasingly available since forever?

seer

Isn't this compiled languages vs writing pure machine code argument all over again?

The compiler produces a metric shit ton of code that I don't see when I'm writing C++ code. And don't get me started on TypeScript/Clojure - the amount of code that gets written underneath is mindbogglingly staggering, yet I don't see it, for me the code is "clean".

And I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the MachineCode -> CompiledCode transition, and have certainly lived through CompiledCode -> InterpretedCode -> TranspiledCode ones.

There were certainly people who knew the ins and outs of the underlying technology who produced some stunningly fast and beautiful code, but the march of progress was inevitable and they were gradually driven to obscurity.

This recent LLM step just feels like more of the same. *I* know how to write an optimized routine that the LLM will stumble to do cleanly, but back in the day lots of assembler wizards were doing some crazy stuff, stuff that I admired but didn't have the time to replicate.

I imagine in the next 10-20 years we will have Devs that _only_ know English, are trained in classical logic and have flame wars about what code exactly would their tools generate given various sentence invocations. And people would benchmark and investigate the way we currently do about JIT compilation and CPU caching - very few know how it actually works but the rest don't have to, as long as the machine produces the results we want.

Just one more step on the abstraction ladder.

The "Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson had very cool extrapolations where this all could lead, technologically, politically, social and morally. LLMs didn't exists when he was writing it, but he predicted it anyway.

muldvarp

I genuinely feel like I got bait-and-switched by computer science. If I could go back and study something different I would do it in a heartbeat.

Sadly, there's very little I can do now. I don't have the financial means to meaningfully change careers now. Pretty much the only thing I could do now that pays somewhat well and doesn't require me to go to university again is teaching. I think I will ride this one out and end it when it ends.

weavejester

"I’m not sure if anyone else feels this way, but with the introduction of generative AI, I don’t find coding fun anymore. It’s hard to motivate myself to code knowing that a model can do it much quicker. The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding."

I experimented with GPT-5 recently and found its capabilities to be significantly inferior to that of a human, at least when it came to coding.

I was trying to give it an optimal environment, so I set it to work on a small JavaScript/HTML web application, and I divided the task into small steps, as I'd heard it did best under those circumstances.

I was impressed overall by how far the technology has come, but it produced a number of elementary errors, such as putting JavaScript outside the script tags. As the code grew, there was also no sense that it had a good idea of how to structure the codebase, even when I suggested it analyze and refactor.

So unless there are far more capable models out there, we're not at the stage where generative AI can match a human.

In general I find current model to have broad but shallow thinking. They can draw on many sources, which is extremely useful, but seem to have problems reasoning things through in depth.

All this is to say that I don't find the joy of coding to have gone at all. In fact, there's been a number of really thorny problems I've had to deal with recently that I'd love to have side-stepped, but due to the currently limitations of LLMs I had to solve them the old-fashioned way.

Finbel

It's so strange. I do all the things you mention and it works brilliantly well 10 times out of 11.

EagnaIonat

You are probably doing something others have done before frequently.

I find the LLMs struggle constantly with languages there is little documentation or out of date. RAG, LoRA and multiple agents help, but they have their own issues as well.

nl

The OP was working on a "a small JavaScript/HTML web application"

This is a particular sweetspot for LLMs at the moment. I'll regularly one-shot entire NextJS codebases with custom styling in both Codex and Claude.

But it turns out the OP is using Copilot. That just isn't competitive anymore.

wseqyrku

> and found its capabilities to be significantly inferior to that of a human, at least when it came to coding.

I think we should step back and ask: do we really want that? What does that imply? Until recently nobody would use a tool and think, yuck, that was inferior of a human.

CamperBob2

I experimented with GPT-5 recently

GPT-5 what? The GPT-5 models range from goofily stupid to brilliant. If you let it select the model automatically, which is the case by default, it will tend to lean towards the former.

weavejester

I was using GitHub Copilot Pro with VS Code, and the agent was labelled "GPT-5". Is this a particularly poor version of the model?

I also briefly tried out some of the other paid-for models, but mostly worked with GPT-5.

nl

Try OpenAI Codex with GPT5-codex medium

The technology is progressing very fast, and that includes both the models and the tooling around it.

For example, Gemini 2.5 was considered a great model for coding when it launched. Now it is far inferior to Codex and Claude code.

The Githib Copilot tooling is (currently) mediocre. It's ok as a better autocomplete but can't really compete with Codex or Claude or even Jules (Gemini) when using it as an agent.

spenczar5

Frankly, yes.

The models are one part of the story. But the software around it matters at least as much: what tools does the model have access to, like bash or just file reading or (as in your example!) just a cache of files visited by the IDE (!). How does the software decide what extra context to provide to the model, how does it record past learnings from conversations and failed test runs (if at all!) and how are those fed in. And of course, what are the system prompts.

None of this is about the model; its all "plain old" software, and is the stuff around the model. Increasingly, that's where the quality differences lie.

I am sorry to say but Copilot is just sort of shoddy in this regard. I like Claude, some people like Codex, there are a bunch of options.

But my main point is - its probably not about the model, but about the products built on the models, which can vary wildly in quality.

beej71

The fun is still there. I'm relearning Rust and generative AI is really useful to help with understanding concepts and improving code. But I'm still the one understanding and improving.

Still an infinite amount to learn and do. It's still not hard to have more skill than an AI. Of course AI can solve all the dumbbell problems you get in school. They're just there to build muscle. Robots can lift weights better than you, too, but that doesn't mean there's no value in you doing it.

quirino

It's Beej from the guides! I really appreciated the perspective you put forward here: https://beej.us/guide/bglcs/html/split/use-of-ai.html#ai-and....

koliber

Software is still eating the world. It was always about efficiency. It was about getting rid of manual data entry by building CSV based export-import flows. It was about getting rid of hundreds of chatbot operators answering mundane questions with an AI bot that could do a decent job with the easy-but-voluminous conversations. Now it’s about getting rid of the tedious coding jobs and replacing them with code gen tools.

In each of these cases, lots of relatively low-value jobs were no longer needed and a few very-high-value jobs sprang into existence.

The author of the article loves coding. But software is about solving problems efficiently, not punching the keyboard. The other parts of the job might not be as fun for everyone, but they are even more valuable than typing code. Great programmers could always do both. Now they can focus on the higher value work more by leveraging tools that can do the lower-value work.

Work is not supposed to be fun. That’s why they pay you to do it. If it was fun, you would have to pay your employer. (Tongue in cheek advice).

snayan

Having gone through a bit of a crisis of meaning personally lately, this article resonates deeply. I would encourage the author to look inward and question the beliefs that got them here.

I'd argue you didn't lose the joy of coding, you lost the illusion that coding made you real, that it made you you.

hinkley

While there's truth in what you say, I don't think anyone should ever lose feeling for an act of creation.

It is never everything, but it should also never be nothing.

anonzzzies

I came to the same conclusion after 40+ years of programming: better if you come to that realisation earlier. Still love coding though, but I leave the paid work to my colleagues and llms: I just code for fun these days. I also write for fun and find it pretty similar, feeling and satisfaction wise.

dimator

But, what about the graduating senior who, yeah started because they love the craft, but also need a way to pay the bills for a few decades of their life?

leptons

There definitely are times that I lose the "joy of coding" and it has nothing to do with any illusions, it has everything to do with the kind of programming tasks I have to work on. Greenfield projects are the best, tech debt is the worst. Working on fun stuff is just fun.

uhhhd

This is wise

analog31

>>> The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding.

Maybe I was lucky. For me, the joy was the power of coding. Granted, I'm not employed as a coder. I'm a scientist, and I use coding as a problem solving tool. Nothing I write goes directly into production.

What's gone is the feeling that coding is a special elite skill.

With that said, I still admire and respect the real software developers, because good software is more than code.

vydra

Its definitely much harder to get into the industry than it was a few years ago and if its coding you were after, you may indeed be disappointed. But give Software Engineering a try! We need to rewrite many of our critical systems and we are afraid to do so primarily to the lack of truly skilled software engineers. IMHO, the AI agents are creating time for us to study what really matters. I would start with Modern Software Engineering by Dave Farley. DM me directly if you want to chat on this topic. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvydra/

zkmon

It may not be that hard to see where this is all going. At least with some precision. Think of global arms race, or industrialization. Humans and this planet did not need any of that. Planet did not need it, because when you look at these cities from a flight, they look exactly like wounds that disrupt the continuity of greenery and terrain. Cities and industries don't belong to this planet. And no need to say much about the silly arms race and business-driven tech that humans have.

AI is just one of those arms races that we imposed on ourselves, with desire to dominate others, or to protect ourselves from such domination. It is irreversible, just like the other things. It survives by using the same tactic of a cheap salesman - tell the first buyer that they can dominate the world, and then tell next buyers that they need to protect themselves from the first one.

We transformed our lifestyles to live with those unnecessary, business/politics driven "advancements". The saga continues.

BTW, electronic calculators, when they came up, did a similar thing, erasing the fun out of calculations by hand.

noduerme

All of life is an arms race. Look at fungi vs. bacteria. All those grasses in the fields and trees in the forests got there by outcompeting other organisms. We're actually the only species which can reason about our resource consumption as a whole, and which has a chance to do something about it. But while we find forests beautiful, they're a blight on grasslands, which are a blight on mosses, which are a blight on plain old rocks.

What's beautiful is complexity, what's ugly is the destruction of complexity. That's why we find the destruction of forests to be repellent. Because we appreciate the more complex over the less complex. Possibly because complexity is the universe's way of observing itself. None of that means that our own complexity is necessarily wicked or irrelevant. It may just be a natural stage in the evolution of a planet. Grassland had 3 billion years to change, and it largely stayed the same. What's a couple thousand years of us blowing shit up, really?

null

[deleted]

jandrewrogers

I still enjoy coding. AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing. There are several domains where AI is worse than useless because training data doesn’t exist. Obviously my experience doesn’t generalize but writing software is a vast, unbounded domain.

If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod.

muldvarp

> AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing.

This assumes that companies care about "code quality" and customers care about bugs.

> If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod.

There are a lot of software engineers and not a lot of frontier.

tonyhart7

"If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod."

this, AI is nothing without data set

so if you working in bleeding edge technology where your tools is only have 3 contributor and a way to access them via IRC channel once a day, things get interesting