[HN Gopher] If AI Can't Code It, It's Already Dead
___________________________________________________________________
If AI Can't Code It, It's Already Dead
The clock is ticking for a lot of frameworks and libraries. Not
because they're bad. Not because the community gave up. But
because AI can't - or won't - code in them. If GPT or Claude
struggles with your framework/library, it might already be
irrelevant... even if it's technically brilliant. That means: (1)
Popular and well-documented frameworks like React or Next.js will
thrive (2) Niche or overly complex tools without wide training data
probably won't stick around I've got mixed feelings about this. On
one side it's efficient and great for productivity. On the other it
feels like innovation might get filtered out before it even starts.
What do you think?
Author : kayabuilds
Score : 4 points
Date : 2025-05-26 22:04 UTC (57 minutes ago)
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Not an issue any more with being able to reference custom
| context. Just more expensive and cumbersome.
| TheMongoose wrote:
| By this logic we will never have another new library again.
| Period. We will never have a substantial API change to an
| existing library either, since there will be no training data for
| it.
|
| What do you think?
| kayabuilds wrote:
| > By this logic we will never have another new library again
|
| I didn't mean "we'll never have new libraries again".
|
| My point is that if a dev can't use a tool with the help of GPT
| or Claude, that tool starts off at a disadvantage.
|
| Innovation can still happen. It just has to fight harder for
| attention now.
|
| > We will never have a substantial API change to an existing
| library either, since there will be no training data for it.
|
| If an update breaks the LLM's ability to assist, devs might
| avoid upgrading until the models catch up. It creates a weird
| lag where the old API is more AI-friendly than the new one,
| even if the new one is technically better.
|
| Just look at React Router (Remix). It's a pain having to
| constantly tell the AI which version you're using. Sometimes
| you spend more time correcting the AI than writing actual code.
| (https://x.com/rafalwilinski/status/1924155117172838838)
|
| So yeah, changes can happen. But now they need to account for
| how LLMs will interpret and support them, not just how humans
| will.
| TheMongoose wrote:
| Who's gonna provide the training data for thew new version if
| nobody updates?
| zahlman wrote:
| > What do you think?
|
| What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
| evidence.
| flooq wrote:
| Isn't AI supposed to work for us rather than the other way
| around? If AI can't learn to code, it's not AI, and it's not
| going to make it.
| shlomo_z wrote:
| Do you have any data to back this up, or are you speculating?
|
| Personally, I do not hesitate to use a library if it has decent
| documentation or even well structured source code. And I say this
| as an AI autocomplete user.
|
| Additionally, if code is well structured, usually humans and AI
| can both learn it with a very small context. For example, many AI
| models can write decent code if you provide them with a list of
| functions and classes in the library, along with their argument
| names and argument types.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-26 23:01 UTC)