companion or replacement?

... Or saboteur. :p

they would replace entire software department until AI make bug because endless changes into your javascript framework then they would hire human again to make fix

we literally creating solution for our own problem

Or, just let their users deal with the bugs b/c churn will be less than the cost of developers.

Right. Look at Electron apps. They're ubiquitous despite the poorer performance and user experience because the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Maintaining a codebase isn't going to be a thing in the future, at least not in the traditional/current sense.

You're absolutely right! My mistake. I'll be careful about apologizing too much in the future.

You sound like a Canadian LLM!

Eh?

It's only a Canadian LLM if you ask it what its favorite food is and it says "poutine".

Or Tim Hortons?

Does the barber shave himself?

> It is absolutely the greatest golden age in programming ever

It depends, because you now have to pay in order to be able to compete against other programmers who're also using AI tools, it wasn't like that in what I'd call the true "golden age", basically the '90s - early part of the 2000s, when the internet was already a thing and one could put together something very cool with just a "basic" text editor.

One could put something cool together without internet using Delphi. The Borland IDEs were ahead of their time - built-in debugger, profiler, and pretty good documentation. My 'internet' was the SWAG Pascal snippet collection (which could be used fully offline). Someone converted it to HTML:

http://www.retroarchive.org/swag/index.html

Wow yeah I'm old enough to remember when the focus wasn't on the programmers, but on the people the programs were written for.

We used to serve others, but now people are so excited about serving themselves first that there's almost no talk of service to others at all anymore

I wish my AI would tell me when I'm going in the wrong direction, instead of just placating my stupid request over and over until I realize.. even though it probably could have suggested a smarter direction, but instead just told me "Great idea! "

I don't know if you have used 2.5, but it is the first model to disagree with directions I have provided...

"..the user suggests using XYZ to move forward, but that would be rather inefficient, perhaps the user is not totally aware of the characteristics of XYZ. We should suggest moving forward with ABC and explain why it is the better choice..."

It really gave me a lot of push back once when I wanted to use a js library over a python one for a particular project. Like I gave it my demo code in js and it basically said, "meh, cute but use this python one because ...reasons..."

Wow, you can now pay to have „engineers” being overruled by artificial „intelligence”? People who have no idea are now going to be corrected by an LLM which has no idea by design. Look, even if it gets a lot of things right it’s still trickery.

I get popcorn and wait for more work coming my way 5 years down the road. Someone will have tidy this mess up and gen-covid will have lost all ability to think on their own by then.

Have you noticed the most recent one, gemini-2.5-pro-0506, suddenly being a lot more sycophantic than gemini-2.5-pro-0325? I was using it to beta-read and improve a story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43998269), and when Google flipped the switch, suddenly 2.5 was burbling to me about how wonderful and rich it was and a smashing literary success and I could've sworn I was suddenly reading 4o output. Disconcerting. And the AI Studio web interface doesn't seem to let you switch back to -0325, either... (Admittedly, it's free.)

You must be confusing „intelligence” with „statistically most probable next word”.

One trick I found is to tell the llm that an llm wrote the code, whether it did or not. The machine doesn't want to hurt your feelings, but loves to tear apart code it thinks it might've wrote.

I like just responding with "are you sure?" continuously. at some point you'll find it gets stuck in a local minima/maxima, and start oscillating. Then I backtrack and look at where it wound up before that. Then I take that solution and go to a fresh session.

Isn’t this sort of what the reasoning models are doing?

Except they have no concept of what "right" is, whereas I do. Once it seems to gotten itself stuck in left field I go back a few iterations and see where it was.