[HN Gopher] I tried coding with AI, I became lazy and stupid
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       I tried coding with AI, I became lazy and stupid
        
       Author : mikae1
       Score  : 45 points
       Date   : 2025-08-10 21:54 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thomasorus.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thomasorus.com)
        
       | j45 wrote:
       | > "When I tried to fix the security issues, I quickly realized
       | how this whole thing was a trap. Since I didn't wrote it, I
       | didn't have a good bird's eye view of the code and what it did. I
       | couldn't make changes quickly, which started to frustrated me.
       | The easiest route was asking the LLM to do the fixes for me, so I
       | did. More code was changed and added. It worked, but again I
       | could not tell if it was good or not."
       | 
       | Maintaining your own list of issues to look for and how to
       | resolve them, or prevent them outright is almost mandatory, and
       | also doubles as a handy field reference guide for what gaps exist
       | in applying LLM's to your particular use when someone higher up
       | asks.
        
       | TheCleric wrote:
       | I am so glad someone else has this same experience as me because
       | everyone else seems all in and I feel like I'm staring at an
       | emperor without clothes.
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | What were you using? Did you use it for a real project? I ask
         | because you're going to have a _vastly_ different experience
         | with Cursor than with Claude Code, for example.
        
         | verdverm wrote:
         | The truth often lies somewhere in between
         | 
         | My personal experience indicates this, AI enhances me but
         | cannot replace me
        
       | rikafurude21 wrote:
       | He freely admits that the LLM did his job way faster than he
       | could, but then claims that he doesnt believe it could make him
       | 10x more productive. He decides that he will not use his new
       | "superpower" because the second prompt he sent revealed that the
       | code had security issues, which the LLM presumably also fixed
       | after finding them. The fact that the LLM didnt consider those
       | issues when writing his code puts his mind at rest about the
       | possibility of being replaced by the LLM. Did he consider that
       | the LLM wouldve done it the right way after the first message if
       | prompted correctly? Considering his "personal stance on ai" I
       | think he was going into this experience expecting exactly the
       | result he got to reinforce his beliefs. Unironically enough thats
       | exactly the type of person who would get replaced, because as a
       | developer if youre not using these tools youre staying behind
        
         | mockingloris wrote:
         | Your last sentence exactly! _With a bit of tonic._
        
         | stavros wrote:
         | Eeeh, the LLM wouldn't have done it correctly, though. I use
         | LLMs exclusively for programming these days, and you really
         | need to tell them the architecture and how to implement the
         | features, and then review the output, otherwise it'll be wrong.
         | 
         | They are like an overeager junior, they know how to write the
         | code but they don't know how to architect the systems or to
         | avoid bugs. Just today I suspected something, asked the LLM to
         | critique its own code, paying attention to X Y Z things, and it
         | found a bunch of unused code and other brittleness. It fixed
         | it, with my guidance, but yeah, you can't let your guard down.
         | 
         | Of course, as you say, these are the tools of the trade now,
         | and we'll have to adapt, but they aren't a silver bullet.
        
       | hazek112 wrote:
       | Haha I encountered this
       | 
       | But maybe AI is just better than I ever was at front end and
       | react
       | 
       | Maybe I should do something else
        
       | cryptoz wrote:
       | I really think people are approaching LLMs wrong when it comes to
       | code. Just directing an agent to make you something you're
       | unfamiliar with is always going to end up with this. It's much
       | better to have a few hours chat with the LLM and learn some about
       | the topic, multiple times over many days, and then start.
       | 
       | And ask questions and read all the code and modify it yourself;
       | and read the compile errors and try to fix then yourself; etc.
       | Come back to the LLM when you're stuck.
       | 
       | Having the machine just build you something from a two sentence
       | prompt is lazy and you'll feel lazy and bad.
       | 
       | Learn with it and improve with it. You'll end up with more
       | knowledge and a code base for a project that you do (at least
       | somewhat) understand, and you'll have a project that you wouldn't
       | have attempted otherwise.
        
         | zackify wrote:
         | Completely agree
        
       | robotbikes wrote:
       | X you e you were
        
       | ants_everywhere wrote:
       | Unfortunately the author is competing with 100% of other devs who
       | are using AI and the vast majority of whom are not becoming lazy
       | or stupid.
        
       | arrowsmith wrote:
       | Congratulations, you tried AI and you immediately noticed all the
       | same problems that everyone else notices. No-one is claiming the
       | technology's perfect.
       | 
       | How many more times is someone going to write this same article?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-08-10 23:00 UTC)