Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by majorbugger on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @06:41AM
(#50438908)
And you end up rewriting this stuff yourself.
If you are a bad senior, yes. If you are a good senior you train the junior so his output will improve and you train the agent so its output will improve.
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by cassianoleal on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @06:47AM
(#50438972)
When I guide a junior engineer, I'm helping a human being become a better version of him/herself, who also helps me grow as a human being and will contribute with their unique ideas and world view, to the team, the organisation, the industry and society.
When I do the same with an LLM, I'm just repeating the same guidance over and over again out of frustration just to get something done.
Comparing an LLM to a junior engineer is frankly a disgrace.
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by ernst_klim on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @06:51AM
(#50439003)
> You provide guidance
For that you need to actually read the code and it's somehow in odds with the whole vibecode idea.
Plus it won't give you the 10x boost the management expects. Only not looking at the code will.
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by ricardobeat on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @08:06AM
(#50439761)
How do you suppose project leads, principal engineers, EMs provide guidance? You don’t have to read the code being written by entire teams/departments for that.
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by ernst_klim on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @08:43AM
(#50440234)
They don't. They manage highly autonomous very well educated senior engineers, who can do the work autonomously. LLMs can't, they are closer to interns with dementia (and occasional genious revelations).
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by gonzalohm on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @06:58AM
(#50439077)
So what's the point of the tool then? So much for saving time, if I have to mentor it like a junior I much rather have a person to mentor
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by hhjinks on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @07:10AM
(#50439183)
That was how I understood "code was never the bottleneck". If I need a deep understanding of the code, I might as well write it myself. It won't increase the time I need for the task appreciably.
Re:AI usage generates a fragile codebase
by gonzalohm on Tuesday November 10, 2026 @07:45AM
(#50439570)
Exactly, same thing with considering AI a higher level language. If I have to think of all the corner cases and design choices in plain English, then I much rather use a programming language whose main purpose is exactly to define cases and behavior of your design
- they write shallow tests
- they write overly complex code
What do you do? You provide guidance, support and tooling so they can write better tests and code. It is the same with AI agents (plus the hassle of how to carry that knowledge around and transfer it). You are responsible.
You are also responsible for the understanding part: know what is being worked on, read/skim the code, inspect the outcomes, cross-check specifications, tests, product requirements. The 'moving too quickly' idea is the other side of the same coin, it is your responsibility to keep track of where the project is going. The same thing happens in a project where you have 10 developers (or 200), you cannot possibly read all of the code they write.
Seeing all of these as downsides is a choice.