[HN Gopher] It took longer to get the API key
___________________________________________________________________
It took longer to get the API key
Author : jdalton
Score : 14 points
Date : 2025-06-12 14:24 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (algarch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (algarch.com)
| jdalton wrote:
| I asked Claude to integrate Google Indexing API. 34 seconds
| later, it was done. I hadn't even gotten the API keys by then.
| Crazy time to be alive.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Google is extra bad. 10+ years ago I did a shoot out of several
| machine learning APIs. All of them were less than 20 minutes to
| start running queries through, except for Google which took
| upwards of an hour and trashed every Python runtime on my
| machine.
| Ronsenshi wrote:
| Sounds like we need a Google API which would allow us to create
| Google API keys so that we can ask LLM to do it.
|
| But then again you would need key for that first API... .
| jdalton wrote:
| A centralized API key registry would be cool, but risky as
| hell.
| hooverd wrote:
| I'll give this credit for being good FOMO content marketing.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| The article preys on the gullible who are naive enough to think
| that AI actually writes flawless code. It doesn't.
| jdalton wrote:
| I don't think it said it wrote code flawlessly.
| quectophoton wrote:
| They might not have said it explicitly, but heavily imply
| it with:
|
| > 34 seconds later, it was done. Not just a quick
| hack...proper production-ready code with error handling,
| logging, environment checks, documentation, the entire
| implementation. Working, tested, committed to git.
|
| > This wasn't copy-paste from Stack Overflow. This was
| bespoke, production-ready code tailored to my specific
| Laravel app, following my existing patterns, with proper
| security considerations.
|
| And with their proposed "AI-Optimized Process"
| conspicuously lacking code review, QA, manual approval.
| Just going straight from prompt to production, with no
| human supervision after the prompt is written. Otherwise
| those steps would have been mentioned in the list, the same
| way "Traditional API Integration Process" mentions them.
|
| At that point might as well add a button to Jira that says
| "Implement this".
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > At that point might as well add a button to Jira that
| says "Implement this".
|
| And just like that, people centuries of
| remediation/refactoring consulting work was created.
| jdalton wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if Jira offered that in the next
| 6 months. Wait until AI gets deeper into PM work..scrum
| could die and I wouldn't shed a tear.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Big clouds - AWS,Google,Azure are so complex that even just
| getting an API key is painful expert level project that you might
| give up on.
|
| I prefer smaller companies where you go to account settings and
| "download API key".
|
| This pain level is a genuine factor for me in using an big cloud
| service.
| jdalton wrote:
| Oh gosh, don't me started on AWS!
| OutOfHere wrote:
| The article is complete nonsense because AI generated code is
| often buggy, and always needs to be reviewed in detail. Also, the
| code can only be good if the prompt is good and detailed. All of
| this takes up a significant amount of time. It would seem that
| the author is technically incapable of reviewing code, which is
| why it's not even an afterthought.
| jdalton wrote:
| It would seem you're far off.
| Leynos wrote:
| This will be the next benchmark suite: how long does it take your
| model to interactively retrieve an API key.
| jdalton wrote:
| It could possibly become that.
| viraptor wrote:
| This is going a bit in the wrong direction. You don't need to
| do it to happen interactively. Models are fine writing
| terraform code which could handle all of that. But your company
| / processes have to be ready for that.
| bsder wrote:
| So ... why couldn't the AI get the API keys?
|
| Now _THAT_ is a task that I would like AI to deal with for me.
| viraptor wrote:
| You don't want to expose the AI to your whole secrets store to
| do the login. But in a way, it can automate the process itself:
| https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/lat...
|
| We still need to use people who know to go that way though and
| how to make the company enforce it.
| jdalton wrote:
| It's sure as heck would make life easier.
| zerotolerance wrote:
| The coding time is irrelevant and always has been. Time writing
| code has never been the high cost or challenge especially so in
| blue sky / green field development cases like those described in
| all these articles. And as far as ops processes go, we're already
| lightyears faster than we were even a decade ago. I could rant
| about ITIL and these integrated flow fantasies, but even that is
| a distraction.
|
| The bulk of engineering time is spent engineering (not writing
| code), researching the right thing to build, reviewing plans with
| product ownership, considering operating context and constraints,
| adjusting designs and redeveloping based on learnings. Writing
| code is the easy part when everyone leaves you alone and you just
| cook. Those meetings aren't going anywhere because at the end of
| the day it takes a lot of back and forth to even come up with a
| relatively stable spec.
|
| I agree that ops automation is important, but its hard to take
| this article seriously.
| jdalton wrote:
| I see those type of meeting just being labeled context
| gathering in the future.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| Maybe what is needed is selective gating - some PRs are the type
| you REALLY have to make sure are reviewed; others can go through
| a barrage of AI reviews (security, code-quality etc) and the
| author can merge.
|
| Either human or AI (or both?) needs to be tagging PRs. Perhaps a
| traffic light system is appropriate? Red - needs close human
| review; green - AI review only; yellow - unclear / somewhere in
| the middle.
|
| Using PRs to merge features gives auditability and traceability
| to which human merged which thing.
|
| As always, it is situational. AI is exposing new shades of grey.
| jdalton wrote:
| Agreed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-12 23:01 UTC)