Tools like Claude Code are the ultimate cheat code for me and have breathed new life into my desire to create. I know more than enough about architecture and coding to understand the plumbing and effectively debug, yet I don't have to know or care about implementation details. It's almost an unfair unlock.

It'll also be good to see leetcode die.

I'm in my 60s and retiring this summer. I feel the opposite. Agents have removed most of the satisfaction and fulfilment from designing, building, testing and completing a feature or component. And if frameworks are a problem, learning to create simply and efficiently without them has its own sense of satisfaction.

Maybe it's a question of expectations. I suspect weavers felt the same with the arrival of mechanised looms in the industrial revolution. And it may be that future coders learn to get their fulfilment otherwise using agents.

I can absolutely see the attraction to business of agents and they may well make projects viable that weren't previously. But for this Luddite, they have removed the joy.

A year ago, cursor was flummoxed by simple things Claude code navigates with ease. But there are still corner cases where it hallucinates on the strangest seemingly obvious things. I'm working on getting it to write code to make what's going on in front of its face more visible to it currently.

I guess it's a question of where you find joy in life. I find no joy in frameworks and APIs. I find it entirely in doing the impossible out of sample things for which these agents are not competitive yet.

I will even say IMO AI coding agents are the coolest thing I've seen since I saw the first cut of cuda 20 years ago. And I expect the same level of belligerence and resistance to it that I saw deployed against cuda. People hate change by and large.

Lots of people wanted (and Intel tried to sell, somewhat succesfully) something they could just plug-and-play and just run the parallel implementations they'd already written for supercomputes using x86. It seemed easier. Why invest all of this effort into CUDA when Intel are going to come and make your current code work just as fast as this strange CUDA stuff in a year or two.

Deep learning is quite different from the earlier uses of CUDA. Those use cases were often massive, often old, FORTRAN programs where to get things running well you had to write many separate kernels targeting each bit. And it all had to be on there to avoid expensive copies between GPU and CPU, and early CUDA was a lot less programmable than it is now, with huge performance penalties for relatively small "mistakes". Also many of your key contributers are scientists rather than profressional programmers who see programming as getting in the way of doing what they acutally want to do. They don't want to spend time completely rewriting their applications and optimizing CUDA kernels, they want to keep on with their incremental modifications to existing codebases.

Then deep learning came along and researchers were already using frameworks (Lua Torch, Caffe, Theano). The framework authors only had to support the few operations required to get Convnets working very fast on GPUs, and it was minimal effort for researchers to run. It grew a lot from there, but going from "nothing" to "most people can run their Convnet research" on GPUs was much eaiser for these frameworks than it was for any large traditional HPC scientific application.

It seems funny though: The advantages of GPGPU are so obvious and unambiguous compared to AI. But then again, with every new technology you probably also had management pushing to use technology_a for <enter something inappropriate for technology_a>.

Like in a few decades when the way we work with AI has matured and become completely normal it might be hard to imagine why people nowadays questioned its use. But they won't know about the million stupid uses of AI we're confronted with every day :)

I remember being a bit surprised when I started reading about GPUs being tasked with processes that weren't what we'd previously understood to be their role (way before I heard of CUDA). For some reason that I don't recall, I was thinking about that moment in tech just the other day.

It wasn't always obvious that the earth rotated around the sun. Or that using a mouse would be a standard for computing. Knowledge is built. We're pretty lucky to stand atop the giants who came before us.

I didn't know about CUDA until however many years ago. Definitely didn't know how early it began. Definitely didn't know there was pushback when it was introduced. Interesting stuff.

*But TBF Xeon Phi was not a complete disaster for if you coded it in assembler you could squeeze out Fermi class GPU performance. Good luck getting the "recompile and run" crowd to do that though as they segued from that to relying on compiler directives going forward and that's how NVDA got a decade+ headstart that should never have happened, but did. Today a lot of these sorts are insisting that because of autograd, everything should be written in Python and compiled with an autograd DSL like torch. I am so glad I am close to retirement on that front. I already trust coding agents more than I trust this mindset.

But good luck explaining that to technical leaders who hadn't written a line of code in over a decade and yet somehow were in charge of things. People really need to consider the backstory here if they want to do better going forward, but I don't think they will. I think history is going to rhyme again.

Won't name names anymore, it really doesn't matter. But I feel the same way about people still characterizing LLMs as stochastic parrots and glorified autocomplete as I feel about certain CPU luminaries (won't name names) continuing to state that GPUs are bad because they were designed for gaming. Neither sorts are keeping up with how fast things change.

If it's the former, you hate AI agents. If it's the latter, you love AI agents.

Bear in mind also that the inputs to train LLMs on future languages and frameworks necessarily have to come from the hacker types. Somebody has to get their hands dirty, the "micro" of the parent post, to write a high quality corpus of code in the new tech so that LLMs have a basis to work from to emit their results.

I don't think you're a hacker. I think you enjoy writing code (good for you). Some of us just enjoy making the computer execute our ideas - like a digital magician. I've also gotten very good at the code writing and debugging part. I've even enjoyed it for long periods of time but there's times where I can't execute my ideas because they're bigger than what I can reasonably do by myself. Then my job becomes pitching, hiring, and managing humans. Now I write code to write code and no project seems too big.

But I'm looking forward to collapsing the many layers of abstraction we've created to move bits and control devices. It was always about what we could do with the computers for me.

What I want to do is create bespoke components that I can use to create a larger solution to solve a problem I have.

What I don't want to do is spend 45 minutes wrangling JSON to a struct so that I can get the damn component working =)

A quick example: I wanted a component that could see if I have new replies on HN using the Algol API. ~10 minutes of wall clock time with Claude, maybe a minute of my time. Just reading through the API spec is 15 minutes. Not my idea of fun.

The reason your login is slow is not because someone didn’t use the right algorithm.

Most game developers are just using other company’s engines.

While yes you need to learn how the architecture, the code isn’t the gating factor.

One example is the Amazon Prime Video team using AWS Step functions when they shouldn’t have and it led to inefficiencies. This was a public article that I can’t find right now.

(And before someone from Amazon Retail chimes in and says much of Amazon Retail doesn’t run on AWS and uses the legacy CDO infrastructure - yes I know. I am a former AWS employee).

These are not toys. I want to make money. The customers want feature after feature, in a steady stream. It's bad business if the third or fourth feature takes ages. The longer stream, the better financially.

That the code "works" on any level is elementary, Watson, what must "work" is that stream of new features/pivots/redesigns/fixes flowing.

But the important thing is getting solutions to users. Claude makes that easier.

At the moment I am trying to fix a vibe coded application and while each individual function is ok, the overall application is a dog’s breakfast of spaghetti which is causing many problems.

If you derive all your pleasure from actually typing the code then you’re probably toast, but if you like building whole systems (that run on production infrastructure) there is still heaps of work to do.

The need for assembly programmers diminished over the decades. A similar thing will happen here.

I highly recommend not using these tools in their "agentic" modes. Stay in control. Tell them exactly what to write, direct the architecture explicitly.

You still get the tremendous benefit of being unlocked from learning tedious syntax and overcoming arcane infra bottlenecks that suck the joy out of the process for me, but you get freed from the tedious and soul crushing parts.

Obviously you should do whatever you want, however you want to do it, and not just do whatever some Internet rando tells you to do, but glorified autocomplete is so 1 year ago. Everyone knows the $20/month plans aren't going to last, time will tell if the $100/month ones do. The satisfaction is now in completing a component and getting to polish it in a way you never had time for before. And then totally crushing the next one in record time. To each their own, of course, but personally, what's been lost with agentic mode has been replaced by quantity and quality.

Their tag line: "Don't outsource your thinking to AI. Instead, use AI to become a better problem solver, clearer thinker, and more elegant coder."

I have followed the course myself and it reignited my passion. During the course I built a cool side project from scratch, small steps, no vibe coding using the course's principals. It was really satisfying, I felt in control again while learning new things.

Congrats! I'm in that age where I'm envying more the ones like you than the 20-something :)

It is still weird to me that I talk to a remote Python app but that's how we write code nowadays. Still, I felt almost mocked when Claude plauded my "accomplishments".

So I'd say that I am definitely more productive than I used to be but I enjoy the work less on one level. But on another level, I feel like I can build a lot more and tackle problems I wouldn't have tackled in the past. It's a mixed blessing. It's also a WIP, I expect that the way we write code will change even more, over the next few years.

I love it, I hate it, it's the Brave New World of software development.

Its almost like it reignites novelty at things that were to administratively heavy to figure out. Im not sure if its fleeting or lasting.

I got completely fed up of continually having to learn new incantations to do the same shit I’ve been doing for decades without enough of a value add on top. I know what I want to build, and I know how to architect and structure it, but it’s simply not a good investment of my increasingly limited time to learn the umpteenth way to type code in simply to display text, data, and images on the web - especially when I know that knowledge will be useful for maybe, if I’m lucky, a handful of years before I have to relearn it again for some other opinionated framework.

It’s just not interesting and I’ve become increasingly resentful of and uninterested in wasting time on it.

Claude, on the other hand, is a massive force multiplier that enables me to focus on the parts of software development I do enjoy: solving the problems without the bother of having to type it all in (like, in days of old, I’d already solved the problem before my fingers touched the keyboard but the time-consuming bit was always typing it all in, testing and debugging - all of that is now faster but especially the typing part), focussing on use cases and user experience.

And I don’t ever have to deal directly with CSS or Tailwind: I simply describe the way I want things to look and that’s how the end up looking.

It’s - so far at any rate - the ultimate in declarative programming. It’s awesome, and it means I can really focus on the quality of the solution, which I’m a big fan of.

Computers do not feature at all in my ideal retirement. Maybe a phone or tablet so I can do the minimal email and bill paying.

"Resentful" is a perfect way of putting it - I may just be old and grumpy now, but I think it's sad what we as a community have done to the process of web development. It's such a circle jerk. Node in my view is the worst thing that ever happened to building web applications.

Enter Claude Cowork. I've spent the past few days building an app that would have taken me weeks of time in the past. It's using a framework I've never built with, and I don't have to learn the intricacies. Shipping this to Vercel and hosting the database on Supabase is incredibly easy and it's very exciting. The only drawback so far is the unsettling fear of the unknown regarding leaking secrets and whatnot, so I'm going to have to manually audit the finished project before deploying.

And here I thought my days of "side projects" were completely over.

- Root cause and fix failures.

- Run any code "what if scenario".

- Performance optimizations.

- Refactor.

There's no reason why you shouldn't (and you should) read all the code and understand it after Claude does any work for you but the experience vs. the "old" SO model of looking for some technical detail is very different.

Some of my colleagues didn’t make the jump. Those that were the most into AngularJS back then are still writing Angular apps today.

I'm only in my forties. I've been nostalgic for the days when I'd stay up all night exploring new frontiers (for me) in tech for a number of years. I could not disagree more with your take on this.

Someone said they value their time before death and you're pretty dismissive. Priorities change. Values change. Conditions change.

> Especially coupled with the fact that tech has never moved so fast as right now, being on top of the AI-game is a target changing a hundred times faster than frontend frameworks back in the days.

I mean, isn't that what people in this thread have been saying about frameworks? How many hours have been lost relearning how to solve a problem that has already been solved? It's like when I tried to fix a date-time issue on Windows as a Mac / Linux user. I knew NTP was the answer but I had to search the web to find out where to turn it on. Stuff like that is pretty frustrating and I didn't even have to do it every five to ten years.

Implementation details can very much matter though. I see this attitude from my managers that now submit huge PRs, and it is becoming a big problem.

I definitely agree that these tools allow one with an in-depth developer background to cover territory that was too much work previously. But plop me into a Haskell codebase, and I guarantee I’d cause all kinds of problems even with the best intentions and newest models. But the ramp up for learning these things has collapsed dramatically, and that’s very cool.

I still don’t want to have to learn all the pitfalls of those frameworks though. Hopefully we will converge on a smaller number, even if it’s on tooling that isn’t my favourite.

And a rewrite of a non-trivial application, even with the AI goodness, is still a big proposition and full of all kinds of risk. If you have a trivial application, you probably don’t have much protecting you from someone else vibing up a competing replacement either.

Coding has never _stopped_ being a passion for me, but my increasingly limited time becomes an issue.

And Claude code (and cursor) saves me So. Much. Time.

I only have 10-20 active years ahead of me, so this is really, really important. Young ppl don’t get it.

Now I do fun code on a laptop on the sofa with my family. I’m only typing in tiny breaks between socializing and I’m still getting lots of fun stuff done.

I can play with my 7yo, or help the 11yo with his homework, or go for a run!! - while LLM is cooking a well-spec'ed agentic task. This sounds embarrassing, but LLMs have made our lives healthier, unbelievable.

PS. Not to mention all the "boring" sh*t that I used to postpone/stretch indefinitely, like writng docs or polishing copy for my website... No more stress, no procrastination, just let the LLM do it.

Phone goes back in my pocket and I'll have something to read when I get back home. Literal game changer.

Before those ideas just flowed through my brain and either out the other ear or got filed into "don't have time anyway shrug" and never completed or even tried.

10-20 years of coding/technology or living?

Young ppl rarely get life experience/choices, youth is wasted on the young, 1000x for my own.

Agreed. Leetcode caused more harm than good.

Where do I even begin...yes, you should care about implementation details unless you're only going to write stuff you run locally for your own amusement.

They often do solve business problems around responsive design, security and ux.

Currently working maintenance with one foot in a real legacy system and the other foot in modern systems the difference is immense.

>> tired of the never ending rat race of keeping up with the latest bizarre web stacks, frameworks

Instead of just keeping up with the latest development frameworks, I also now have to keep up with the latest AI frameworks. I spent a week at my $ job just installing plugins, requesting permissions, debugging issues with the agents, before I went back to writing code myself (plumbing between the latest frameworks) because I'm expected to get stuff done in addition to managing agents that were supposedly going to do my work for me.

My personal agentic AI coding setup never fully materialized while I have been chasing the latest crazes and I am back to handwriting my personal code too (with AI chat help) until I manage to stick to a particular setup.

Anyway, I feel like the rat race just opened yet another front. And I bet I'll still be expected to leetcode in my next technical interview (still was in 2025) in addition to leetprompting or whatever the next segment on interviews will be.

But the real talk we need to have is... "Uber for cats"

Now a lot can be cast off to LLMs to focus on the problem space and the innovative computing use around them. It’s been exciting to not worry about arbitrary idiosyncrasies and machete through jungles of technical minutia to get to the clearing. I still have to deal with them but less of them. And I don’t have to commit nearly as much in the technical space to memory to address problems, I can often focus on higher level architectural decisions or new approaches to problems. It’s been quite enjoyable as well.

I kinda feel the same way when I visit Home Depot once a year

Have you tried Claude? No, Opus? No, not that version, it's two weeks old, positively ancient lol. Oh wait, now OpenClaw is the cool thing around the block.

My dude, the rat race just became a rat sprint. I hope you're keeping up, you're no spring chicken any more.

It makes it so easy to cut through the bullshit. And I've never considered myself scared of asking "stupid" questions. But after using these AI tools I've noticed that there are actually quite a few cases where I wouldn't ask (another human) a question.

Two examples: - What the hell does React mean when they say "rendering"? Doesn't it just output HTML/a DOM tree and the browser does the actual rendering? Why do they call it rendering? - Why are the three vectors in transformer models named query, key & value? It doesn't really make sense, why do they call it that?

In both cases it turns out, the question wasn't really that stupid. But they're not the kind of question I'd have turned to Stackoverflow for.

It really is a bit like having a non-human quasi-expert on most topics at your fingertips.

And yet, having customers and listening to them is the whole point.

Anything that re-ignites a person's zest for thinking and creating is a net gain.

That said, it is paradoxical that the catalyst in this case is a technology that replaces thinking.

My experience is that people who weren't very good at writing software are the ones now "most excited" to "create" with a LLM.

You have decades of expert knowledge, which you can use to drive the LLMs in an expert way. Thats where the value is. The industry or narrative might not have figured that out yet, but its inevitable.

Garbage in, garbage out still very much applies in this new world.

And just to add, the key metric to good software hasn't changed, and won't change. It's not even about writing the code, the language, the style, the clever tricks. What really matters is how well does the code performs 1 month after it goes live, 6 months, 5 years. This game is a long game. And not just how well does the computer run the code, but how well can the humans work with the code.

Use your experience to generate the value from the LLMs, cuase they aren't going to generate anything by themselves.

Massive job cuts, bad job market, AI tools everywhere, probable bubble, it seems naive to be optimistic at this juncture.

LLMs may be accelerating the process, but definitely not the cause.

If you want a career in technology, a durable one, you learn to adapt. Your primary skill is NOT to master a given technology, it is the ability to master a given technology. This is a university that has no graduation!

If you're a great programmer, can you can stop using Angular and master React? Yes. Can you stop telling the computer what to do, and master formal proof assistants? Maybe. Can you stop using the computer except as a tool and go master agricultural technology? Probably not. (Which is not to say you can't be a good programmer at an agritech company)

Let’s talk about the industries the computer killed: travel agents, musician, the entire film development industry, local newspapers built on classified ads, the encyclopedia industry, phone operators, projectionists, physical media industries, and a few dozen other random industries.

We aren’t special because we are coders. Creativity and engineering thoughtfulness will still exist even with LLMs, it will just take a different form.

This is the fundamental problem with how so many people think about LLMs. By the time you get to Principal, you've usually developed a range of skills where actual coding represents like 10% of what you need to do to get your job done.

People very often underestimate the sheer amount of "soft" skills required to perform well at Staff+ levels that would require true AGI to automate.

I remember a cinema theater projectionist telling me exactly that while I was wiring a software controlling numeric projector, replacing the 35mm ones.

[citation needed]

It has just merely moved from "almost, but not entirely useless" to "sometimes useful". The models themselves may perhaps be capable already, but they will need much better tooling than what's available today to get more useful that that, and since it's AI enthusiasts who will happily let LLMs code them that work on these tools it will still take a while to get there :)

[citation needed]

:P

This thing has changed the way I work. I barely touch my editor to actually edit anymore, because speaking into the chat field what changes I want it to make is more efficient

The tooling does need to get better, yes, but anecdotally, I do a fundamentally different job (more thinking, less typing, less sifting through docs, less wiring up) than 3 months ago

So much of my career was spent on especially rummaging in docs and googling and wiring things up. I believe that's the same for most of us

If we truly value human creativity, then things that decrease the rote mechanical aspects of the job are enablers, not impediments.

Society can interpret sociopathy as damage and route around it, if we do the work to make it happen. It will not happen by itself without effort.

After 40 years in this industry—I started at 10 and hit 50 this year—I’ve developed a low tolerance for architectural decay.

Last night, I used Claude to spin up a website editor. My baseline for this project was a minimal JavaScript UI I’ve been running that clocks in at a lean 2.7KB (https://ponder.joeldare.com). It’s fast, it’s stable, and I understand every line. But for this session, I opted for Node and neglected to include my usual "zero-framework" constraint in the prompt.

The result is a functional, working piece of software that is also a total disaster. It’s a 48KB bundle with 5 direct dependencies—which exploded into 89 total dependencies. In a world where we prioritize "velocity" over maintenance, this is the status quo. For me, it’s unacceptable.

If a simple editor requires 89 third-party packages to exist, it won't survive the 5-year test. I'm going back to basics.

I'll try again but we NEED to expertly drive these tools, at least right now.

> neglected to include my usual "zero-framework" constraint in the prompt

And then your complaint is that it included a bunch of dependencies?

AI's do what you tell them. I don't understand how you conclude:

> If a simple editor requires 89 third-party packages to exist

It obviously doesn't. Why even bother complaining about an AI's default choices when it's so trivial to change them just by asking?

You call it a trivial instruction, but it is not trivial. It was a core requirement for your own design that you neglected to specify. This is not different than leaving out any other core requirement for a engineering specification.

Most people would NOT want this requirement. Meaning most people wouldn't care if there are package dependencies are not, so the agent 100% did the right thing.

What's missing is another LLM dialog between you and Claude. One that figures out your priorities, your non-functional requirements, and instructs Claude appropriately.

We'll get there.

There are already spec frameworks that do precisely this. I've been using BMAD for planning and speccing out something fairly elaborate, and it's been a blast.

I have been consistently skeptical of LLM coding but the latest batch of models seems to have crossed some threshold. Just like everyone, I've been reading lots of news about LLMs. A week ago I decided to give Claude a serious try - use it as the main tool for my current work, with a thought out context file, planning etc. The results are impressive, it took about four hours to do a non-trivial refactor I had wanted but would have needed a few days to complete myself. A simpler feature where I'd need an hour of mostly mechanical work got completed in ten minutes by Claude.

But, I was keeping a close eye on Claude's plan and gradual changes. On several occasions I corrected the model because it was going to do something too complicated, or neglected a corner case that might occur, or other such issues that need actual technical skill to spot.

Sure, now a PM whose only skills are PowerPoint and office politics can create a product demo, change the output formatting in a real program and so on. But the PM has no technical understanding and can't even prompt well, let alone guide the LLM as it makes a wrong choice.

Technical experts should be in as much demand as ever, once the delirious "nobody will need to touch code ever again gives way to a realistic understanding that LLMs, like every other tool, work much better in expert hands. The bigger question to me is how new experts are going to appear. If nobody's hiring junior devs because LLMs can do junior work faster and cheaper, how is anyone going to become an expert?

It’s refreshing to hear I’m not the only one who feels this way. I went from using almost none of my copilot quota to burning through half of it in 3 days after switching to sonnet 4.6. I’m about to have to start lobbying for more tokens or buy my own subscription because it’s just that much more useful now.

I'm still not ready to sing praises about how awesome LLMs are, but after two years of incremental improvements since the first ChatGPT release, I feel these late-2025 models are the first substantial qualitative improvement.

I see unreliable software like openclaw explode in popularity while a Director of Alignment at Meta publicly shares how it shredded her inbox while continuing to use openclaw [1], because that's still good enough innit? I see much buggier releases from macOS & Windows. The biggest military in the world is insisting on getting rid of any existing safeguards and limitations on its AI use and is reportedly using Claude to pick bombing targets [2] in a bombing campaign that we know has made mistakes hitting hospitals [3] and a school [4]. AI-generated slop now floods social networks with high popularity and engagement.

It's a known effect that economies of scale lowers average quality but creates massive abundance. There never really was a fundamental quality bar to software or creative work, it just has to be barely better than not existing, and that bar is lower than you might imagine.

[1] https://x.com/summeryue0/status/2025774069124399363

[2] https://archive.ph/bDTxE

[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/who-says-has-it-ha...

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-school-strike-us-mil...

I must say I find this idea, and this wording, elitist in a negative way.

I don't see any fundamental problem with democratization of abilities and removal of gatekeeping.

Chances are, you were able to accumulate your expert knowledge only because:

- book writing and authorship was democratized away from the church and academia

- web content publication and production were democratized away from academia and corporations

- OSes/software/software libraries were all democratized away from corporations through open-source projects

- computer hardware was democratized away from corporations and universities

Each of the above must have cost some gatekeepers some revenue and opportunities. You were not really an idiot just because you benefited from any of them. Analogously, when someone else benefits at some cost to you, that doesn't make them an idiot either.

It would be like if you put in all this time to get fit and skilled on mountain bikes and there was a whole community of people, quiet nature, yada yada, and then suddenly they just changed the rules and anyone with a dirt bike could go on the same trails.

It's double damage for anyone who isn't close to retirement and built their career and invested time (i.e. opportunity cost) into something that might become a lot less valuable and then they are fearful for future economic issues.

I enjoy using LLMs and have stopped writing code, but I also don't pretend that change isn't painful.

However, our personal emotions need not turn into disparaging others' use of the same skills for their satisfaction / welfare / security.

Additionally, our personal emotions need not color the objective analysis of a social phenomenon.

Those two principles are the rationales behind my reply.

I suppose I see "any idiot" as a more general phrase, like "idiot proof", not directly meaning that anyone who uses a LLM is an idiot. However I can also see how it would be seen as disparaging.

Also, while there's a lot of examples of people entrenching into a certain behavior or status and causing problems, I also think society is a bit harsh on people who struggle with change. For people who are less predisposed to be ok with change feels like a lot of the time the response is "just deal with it and don't be selfish, this new XYZ is better for society overall".

Society is pretty much made up of personal emotions on some level. I don't think we should go around attacking people, but very few things can be considered truly objective in the world of societal analysis.

This parroted argument is getting really tired. It signals either astroturfing or someone who just accepts what they are sold without thinking.

LLMs aren’t “democratising” anything. There’s no democracy in being mostly beholden to a few companies which own the largest and most powerful models, who can cut you off at any time, jack up the prices to inaccessibility, or unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

You know what’s truly “democratic” and without “gatekeeping”? Exactly what we had before, an internet run by collaboration filled with free resources for anyone keen enough to learn.

There are loads of high performance open source LLMs on the market that compete with the big 3. I have not seen this level of community engagement and collaboration since the open-source boom 20 years ago.

The issue arises from it not being that person’s opinion but a talking point. People didn’t all individually arrive at this “democratisation” argument by themselves, they were sold what to say by the big players with vested interest in succeeding.

I’m very much for discussing thoughts one has come up with themselves, especially if they disagree with mine. But what is not productive is arguing with a proxy.

> I have not seen this level of community engagement and collaboration

Nor this level of spam and bad submissions.

> Nor this level of spam and bad submissions.

Your comments seem pretty aggressive for what you’re replying to. Maybe take a beat to assess your biases? I thought the main comment was pretty fair and sensible, yet somehow you landed on calling them a spammer/bad submitter/astroturfer/non-thinker. Maybe they are? I could be wrong, but that's quite a strong reaction for what they asserted at face value. Not really trying to police anything here, I just thought the initial comment had merit and this devolved quite quickly.

Programming is a tricky skill and takes a long time to get good at. Lots of people aren't good at it. AI helps them program anyway, and allows them to sometimes produce useful programs. That's it.

It's not a talking point. It's just the reality of what the technology enables, and it's a simple enough observation that millions of people can independently arrive at that conclusion, and some of them might even refer to it as "democratization".

This is a good thing. It's a filter for the careless, lazy, and incompetent. LLMs are to programming what a microwave is to food. I'm not a chef because I can nuke a hot pocket. "Vibe coders" (not AI-assisted coding) are the programming equivalent of the people on Kitchen Nightmares. Go figure, it's a community rife with narcissism, too.

It is what we are talking about, hence not "counterproductive".

They absolutely are. Anytime new knowledge or skills become widely available to everyone, that's a term used for it.

> There’s no democracy in being mostly beholden to a few companies which own the largest and most powerful models, who can cut you off at any time, jack up the prices to inaccessibility, or unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

None of that has anything to do with anything. There's competition between companies to keep prices low and accessibility high.

I think you are simply misunderstanding the word "democratic". It isn't just political. From MW:

> 3 : relating, appealing, or available to the broad masses of the people : designed for or liked by most people

Here, it's specifically about making things available to the broad masses of the people that wasn't before.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's just the meaning of the word.

There was no tool that could easily whip up a 300 line script to do something for me when I didn't know how to code, and do it in just seconds.

The topic here is the democratization of a whole set of new abilities. Not just knowledge.

....so your only option was to just learn? learn from the freely & vastly available resources? Oh the horrifying tragedy. How elitist. How gatekeeping. To think you had to put in effort.

LLMs have a lot of good and bad, but saying they "democratised" anything is plain bullshit.

But that's the whole point...

When things that previously took hundreds of hours of effort to learn now become available with just a few minutes, they become available to all -- even those without all that extra time, which is most people who have a lot of other competing priorities in their lives.

That's democratization.

I don't understand why you're trying to argue against that. It's a dictionary definition. It's just a meaning of the word.

Whatever you seem to be upset about is something else, I don't know what.

The knowledge was freely available for the past few decades, way before LLMs - ergo democratised. The skill was freely available to learn - ergo democratised.

By your logic,

- cooking is a skill that is not democratised (despite the fact that you can do it everyday).

- A person who doesn't take time to learn cooking from cookbooks or youtube tutorials is somehow "lacking access" and in an undemocratic position

- An experienced chef is monopolising his mastery of cooking skills bc they dedicated time to learning them

- a robot that manufactures food is "democratising cooking skills"

See how silly that sounds?

Not to mention, using an AI to do a job is NOT equivalent to learning the skills of the job. Me having a printer doesn't mean "painting skills were democratised".

That would not happen, simply because those companies' interest will never be aligned entirely. There are at least three SOA models at the moment plus many open weight models. Anthropic vs. Pentagon is exactly what would play out.

And what is a precedence? Don't say Google, because search is well and alive.

> You know what’s truly “democratic” and without “gatekeeping”? Exactly what we had before, an internet run by collaboration filled with free resources for anyone keen enough to learn.

We have way more free resources at the moment. Name anything you'd like to learn, someone will be able to point you to a relevant resource. There are also better ways of surfacing that resource.

> This parroted argument

Most of arguments here on HN have been discussed ad nauseam, for or against AI. It's only parroted (or biased) if it's against your own beliefs.

Everyone already had the option to write any code, fork any open source project, publish any of their code, run any of their code but suddenly AI appears and THAT is what makes it democratic? What was undemocratic about it? Is this democracy where idiots are running ai agents that publish smear campaigns, or harass maintainers for not accepting their slop is the democratic future you wish for?

How many (job) positions do you see today that want a backend developer? Frontend developer? Not much because now everyone is expected to be at least full stack, if not also devops as well. The exact same thing is playing out right now with AI, people are expected to produce 5x the amount of code before, if you don't, someone else will take your job that is willing to do it.

Already bloated programs will bloat further, they will require even more resources to run, you will have to pay even more for hardware, they will be slower, less responsive, you will have to pay yet another monthly fee to big tech for their AIs, and people will happily do it and pat themselves that we democratized programming, while running towards the future where nobody will be able to own hardware capable of general computing.

Why blame big tech when they're just providing a service at a fair cost (3rd party inference is incredibly cheap)? I'm not sure how that makes sense.

LOL. Maybe you are referring to OpenAI and Anthropic? Yes they have codex and opus. But about 1-2 months behind them is Grok, Gemini, and then 2-3 months behind them are all the other models available in cursor, from chinese open source models to composer etc.

How you can possibly use this "big company takes everything away" narrative is ridiculous, when you can probably use models for free that are abour 2 months behind the best models. This is probably the most uncentralised tech boom ever.

(I mean openAI is in such a bad state, I wouldn't be surprised if they lose almost their entire lead and user base within 6-12 months and are basically at the level of small chinese llm developers).

> when you can probably use models for free that are about 2 months behind the best models.

You can use them for free, but training of near-SOTA foundation models is currently not an open-source process, and it's funded almost exclusively by large and/or wealthy corporations. That's a weak point at the moment from the perspective of openness.

It was very democratized before, almost anyone could pick up a book or learn these skills on the internet.

Opportunity was democratized for a very long time, all that was needed was the desire to put in the work.

OP sounds frustrated but at the same time the societal promise that was working for longest time (spend personal time specializing and be rewarded) has been broken so I can understand that frustration..

/s, obviously I would hope except I've actually seen this sentiment expressed seriously.

They are not obese because they cannot afford the necessary amounts of protein and calories from healthy sources in the grocery store.

If you eschew those highs and settle for some sprouted moong bean salad with a little bit of salt/lime/black pepper, or hummus and veggies, or eggs with some smashed avocado on toast, tofu and some broccoli, etc, then it does not cost much time.

There is no baking involved, just cutting, mixing, blending, and maybe soaking. Sautéing or pan frying in a little bit of olive oil or canola oil is also quick.

There is a range of food processing going from raw vegetables to hyper-processed fast food.

Most people fall in the middle and expect their food to be boiled, baked, fried, etc. They will most likely not want to eat just salad 24/7.

And once you start boiling/baking/frying, you're adding a lot more processing time just for the food itself, let alone cleaning everything afterwards.

Plus people want varied diets so they need a wide range of different tasting foods, most like 10-20.

Cooking well is really hard and very time consuming (and potentially costly!) to learn.

Healthy living enthusiasts as well as cooking enthusiasts (sometimes the same group, many times different groups) REALLY love to minimize this aspect.

>Most people fall in the middle and expect their food to be boiled, baked, fried, etc. They will most likely not want to eat just salad 24/7.

> Plus people want varied diets so they need a wide range of different tasting foods, most like 10-20.

Right, so the problem is people want to eat unhealthy foods. The problem is not lack of money or time.

Did you actually read the 2 paragraphs you quoted?

It does not. Legumes, whole grains, vegetables, and yogurt have always been cheaper than processed food.

People prefer eating carbohydrates and saturated fats.

It doesn’t.

It doesn't. Carbs like rice, potatoes, etc. are incredibly cheap. Protein like ground beef and basic cuts of chicken are not expensive. And broccoli, carrots, green peppers, apples -- these are not exactly breaking the bank. Product is seasonal, so you vary what you buy according to what is cheapest this week.

Meanwhile, stuff like breakfast cereal and potato chips and Oreo cookies actually are surprisingly expensive.

is there price to be paid for getting any desired result imaginable without effort on a press of a button?

So it's not just software that's coming to an end, everything else is as well. But; billionaires wives will still need haircuts (women billionaires will also need haircuts), so hairdresser will be the last profession.

That said, if we zoom out and review such paradigm shifts over history, we find that they usually result in some new social contracts and value systems.

Both good expert writers and poor novice writers have been able to publish non-fiction books from a few centuries now. But society still doesn't perceive them as the same at all. A value system is still prevalent and estimated primarily from the writing itself. This is regardless of any other qualifications/disqualifications of authors based on education / experience / nationality / profession etc.

At the individual level too, just because book publishing is easy doesn't mean most people want to spend their time doing that. After some initial excitement, people will go do whatever are their main interests. Some may integrate these democratized skills into their main interests.

In my opinion, this historical pattern will turn out to be true with the superdrug as well as vibe coding.

Some new value will be seen in the swimming or running itself - maybe technique or additional training over and above the drug's benefits.

Some new value will be discovered in the code itself - maybe conceptual clarity, algorithmic novelty, structural cleanliness, readability, succinctness, etc. Those values will become the new foundations for future gatekeeping.

It's a nice idea, but I feel like that's only going to be the case for very small companies or open source projects. Or places that pride themselves on not using AI. Artisan code I call it.

At my company the prevailing thought is that code will only be written by AI in the future. Even if today that's not the case, they feel it's inevitable. I'm skeptical of this given the performance of AI currently. But their main point is, if the code solves the business requirements, passes tests and performs at an adequate level, it's as good as any hand written code. So the value of readable, succinct, novel code is completely lost on them. And I fear this will be the case all over the tech sector.

I'm hopeful for a bit of an anti-AI movement where people do value human created things more than AI created things. I'll never buy AI art, music, TV or film.

But I do agree, if everyone can build software then the allure of it along with the value will be lost. Vibe coding is only a superpower as long as you're one of the select few doing it. Although I imagine it will continue to become a niche thing, anyone who thinks everyone and their grandma will be vibing bespoke software is out to lunch.

Personally I think there is a certain je ne sais quoi about creating software that cannot be distilled to some mechanical construct, in the same way it exists for art, music, etc. So beyond assembly line programming, there will always be a human involved in the loop and that will be a differentiating factor.

Given how I've seen a lot of AI "artists" describe themselves and "their" works, yeah, probably a lot of them would.

I gatekeep my bike, I keep it behind a gate. If you break the gate open and democratize my bike, you're an idiot.

Maybe it's of value that any idiot can do this, but we're still idiots.

You gatekeep your bike, you keep it behind a gate, you don't let anyone else ride it.

Your neighbor got a nicer bike for Christmas, rode it by your house and now you are sad because you aren't the special kid with the bike any more, you are just regular kid like your neighbor.

We can dish it out, but we can’t take it.

As for the comparisons - some are partly comparable to the current situation, but there's some differences as well. Sure books and online content enabled others to join, thereby reducing the "moat" for those who built careers on esoteric knowledge. But it didn't make things _that_ easy - it still required years of invested time to become a good developer. Also, it happened very gradually and while the developer pie was growing, and the range of tech growing, so developers who kept on top of technology (like OP did) could still be valuable. Of course, no one knows fully how it will play out this time around; maybe the pie will get even bigger, maybe there's still room for lots of developers and the only difference is that the tedious work is done. Sure, then it is comparable. But let's be honest, this has a very real chance of being different (humans inventing AI surely is something special!) and could result in skill-sets collapsing in value at record time. And perhaps worse, without opening new doors. Sure, new types of jobs may appear but they may be so different that they are essentially completely different careers. It is not like in the past you just needed to learn a new programming language.

Gates were put in place for lawyers, doctors, and engineers (real ones, not software "engineers") because the cost of their negligence and malpractice was ruined lives and death. Gatekeeping has value.

Software quality, reliability, and security was already lousy before the advent of LLMs, making it increasingly clear that the gate needed to be kept. Gripes about "gatekeeping" are a dogwhistle for "I would personally benefit from the bar being lowered even further".

This discussion is specifically about lowering the barriers of programming and creating using software.

I haven't said anything at all about other professions nor do I think my arguments for democratizing software creation apply to law, medicine, or "real" engineering.

There's also a false equivalence in the software part of your comment. It equates lowering of barriers for recreational/hobby coding with software engineering for serious purposes.

Since you dismiss me as a dogwhistle, I hope my terming your argument as elitist, strawmanish, and full of false equivalences is only seen as fair.

Skill based one of course.

Open research papers, that everyone can access is democratizing knowledge. Accessibile worldwide courses, maybe (like open universities).

But LLMs are not quite the sane. This is taking knowledge from everyone and, in the best case, paywalling it.

I agree in spirit that the original comment was classist, but in this context your statements are also out of place, in my opinion.

- What if these centralized providers had restricted their LLMs to a small set of corporations / nations / qualified individuals?

- What if Google that invented the core transformer architecture had kept the research paper to themselves instead of openly publishing it?

- What if the universities / corporations, who had worked on concepts like the attention mechanism so essential for Google's paper, had instead gatekept it to themselves?

- What if the base models, recipes, datasets, and frameworks for training our own LLMs had never been open-sourced and published by Meta/Alibaba/DeepSeek/Mistral/many more?

I'm pretty sure that someone else would have come around the corner with a similar idea some time later, because the fundamentals of these stuff were already discussed decases before "Attention is all you need" paper, the novel thing they did was combining existing knowhow into a new idea and making it public. A couple of ingredients of the base research for this is decades old (interestingly back then some European universities were leading the field)

I am not trying to be dismissive, but this could apply to all research ever

Cell phones made communication easier for exactly zero people even though billions have been sold. Why? Because they come from just a few different companies.

Similar story to cell phones.

LLMs are in this state right out the gate.

I'm sure that's why they're investing 1 trillion in AI, for the poor illiterates.

—- from a ‘principal engineer’

It's funny you say that, because I've seen plenty of the reverse elitism from "AI bros" on HN, saying things like:

> Now that I no longer write code, I can focus on the engineering

or

> In my experience, it's the mediocre developers that are more attached to the physical act of writing code, instead of focusing on the engineering

As if getting further and further away from the instructions that the CPU or GPU actually execute is more, not less, a form of engineering, instead of something else, maybe respectable in its own way, but still different, like architecture.

It's akin to someone claiming that they're not only still a legitimate novelist for using ChatGPT or a legitimate illustrator for using stable diffusion, but that delegating the actual details of the arrangement of words into sentences or layers and shapes of pigment in an image, actually makes them more of a novelist or artist, than those who don't.

I've been a tech lead for years and have written business critical code many times. I don't ever want to go back to writing code. I am feeling supremely empowered to go 100x faster. My contribution is still judgement, taste, architecture, etc. And the models will keep getting better. And as a result, I'll want to (and be able to) do even more.

I also absolutely LOVE that non-programmers have access to this stuff now too. I am always in favor of tools that democratize abilities.

Any "idiot" can build their own software tailored to how their brains think, without having to assemble gobs of money to hire expensive software people. Most of them were never going to hire a programmer anyway. Those ideas would've died in their heads.

Programming was already “democratized” in the sense that anyone could learn to program for free, using only open-source software. Making everyone reliant on a few evil megacorporations is the opposite of democratization.

It's the same sort of argument artists use when it comes to AI generated media, there obviously is a qualitative difference in the people now able to generate whatever they want versus needing to draw something by hand, so saying "they could've just learned to draw themselves" is not very convincing. People don't want to do that yet still get an output, and I see nothing wrong with that, and if you do, it's just another sort of gatekeeping, that the "proper" way is to learn it by hand.

Lastly, many, many open weight models exist.

This is like democratizing house building.

They are not building anything; they are paying Anthropic to do it.

> Lastly, many, many open weight models exist.

Good luck running them when the megacorporations have bought out all hardware.

Open weight models run on consumer hardware, if you think corporations will make every single piece of hardware unaffordable then I'm not sure what to tell you.

One thing is for sure LLMs will bring down down the cost of software per some unit and increase the volume.

But..cost = revenue. What is a cost to one party is a revenue to another party. The revenue is what pays salaries.

So when software costs go down the revenues will go down too. When revenues go down lay offs will happen, salary cuts will happen.

This is not fictional. Markets already reacted to this and many software service companies took a hit.

I'm in the boat of SaaS myself, but feel a bit dishonesty from Senior devs complaining about technology stealing jobs. When it was them doing the stealing, it was fine. Now that the tables have turned, it's not technology is bad

You may not end up with a seat at the table.