[HN Gopher] Everything Changes, and Nothing Changes
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Everything Changes, and Nothing Changes
        
       Author : todsacerdoti
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2026-02-28 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (btao.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (btao.org)
        
       | jongjong wrote:
       | I self-taught myself coding at a young age but I haven't had any
       | identity crisis due to AI. I always saw myself as a software
       | architect, not a coder.
       | 
       | When I was a junior learning to code, I would feel proud of
       | myself because I could remember 100 lines of Windows API code
       | needed to create a new window... But it's been decades since I
       | understood that the real value is not in the code. It's in the
       | architecture. As the author alludes to; the intuition behind the
       | code is what counts.
       | 
       | I think highly competent engineers are often underappreciated
       | because the really clever stuff they do doesn't appear clever at
       | all; it looks deceptively simple. I think what people don't
       | understand is that maintaining simplicity whilst requirements are
       | becoming more complex, is very difficult.
        
         | fuzzzerd wrote:
         | That maybe true, value is producing simple solutions as
         | requirements get complex, but will companies realize and value
         | this?
        
       | dventimi wrote:
       | So...software engineers become product managers? All of us?
       | That's going to be an awful lot of product managers.
        
         | magpi3 wrote:
         | Or it could be an awful lot of productivity. We have to think
         | bigger. What would the world look like if every programmer were
         | a 10x (or whatever) programmer?
        
           | dventimi wrote:
           | Sure. I'm with you. I'm just puzzled by the article.
        
         | nine_k wrote:
         | More like architects, in the civil engineering sense. Even if
         | you don't pour concrete or drive nails yourself, you have to
         | have a lot of technical understanding, including the low level,
         | to be able to design a building competently. And, very
         | certainly, you have to be able to inspect how the nails are
         | driven and how the bricks are laid, whether your contractors
         | are humans or robots.
        
           | dventimi wrote:
           | I create a lot of applications with AI. I don't inspect any
           | of the cod.
        
             | nine_k wrote:
             | Maybe you should, something fishy may be going on in it.
        
           | wolvesechoes wrote:
           | > And, very certainly, you have to be able to inspect how the
           | nails are driven and how the bricks are laid, whether your
           | contractors are humans or robots.
           | 
           | As someone coming from non-software engineering (mechanical),
           | I always believed that good engineer is capable, and
           | sometimes does these things himself. This guarantees he
           | actually understands his domain in all aspects.
        
       | AreShoesFeet000 wrote:
       | There's also the other way around. Semantic AI is a good chunk of
       | meat, but it can only be useful as it's harnessed properly with a
       | nice set of bones. I think that symbolic AI will make a come back
       | eventually. Not as an accelerator of what's already been done in
       | the Industry, but as the actual revolution.
       | 
       | And don't be naive to think that there aren't sophisticated
       | symbolic handling mechanisms being implemented in the training of
       | the models by Big Tech. Not even baby soap is truly neutral.
        
         | xg15 wrote:
         | As a possible example of this, I was kind of baffled how
         | quickly we're all now throwing the sophisticated AST/program
         | analysis and refactoring methods over board we already had
         | before AI. Just look at the refactoring methods of Eclipse or
         | IntelliJ.
         | 
         | I think those should be very useful, _especially_ with AI:
         | Either as a tool for the agents themselves - why spend heaps of
         | tokens completely rewriting a code file, if you could do most
         | of it by calling some global refactoring operations on the IDE
         | 's AST/symbol database?
         | 
         | Or side-by-side with it, to give human users better insight
         | what the AI did.
         | 
         | Instead it seems to be all VSCode (if at all) + grep + AI
         | agents, and nothing else.
        
           | tao_oat wrote:
           | This is an interesting idea! I searched around and it looks
           | like there's [ast-grep](https://ast-grep.github.io/), an AST-
           | aware CLI that can search and refactor code -- and you can
           | expose it to your AI agent using a skill
           | (https://github.com/ast-grep/agent-skill).
           | 
           | Not exactly symbolic AI, but pretty cool nonetheless.
        
           | jauntywundrkind wrote:
           | > _especially with AI_
           | 
           | Yeah, the middle path sounds promising.
           | 
           | "Code Mode", where the AI writes a little program or script
           | to do the AST/symbol transformations sounds like the win. As
           | you point out, less tokens, and gives the humans insight.
           | 
           | This isn't exactly the same application of a "code mode" as
           | before, but in my view it's a broad philosophy. AI for
           | building machines, instead of doing the work directly. It
           | also allows for easier updates/retries too.
           | https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45399204
           | https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode-mcp/
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47089505
        
       | magpi3 wrote:
       | But what happens when the bill comes in? That's my biggest fear.
       | I heard on a recent podcast that it is a great time to be a
       | micro-entrepreneur, and I think that's true right now because AI
       | is so cheap. But AI companies are hemorraghing money. What
       | happens to those micro-entrepreneurs when the price goes up? Are
       | we going to live in a world where only large, rich corporations
       | can afford to competitively develop things? Maybe so, but it is
       | depressing to think about.
       | 
       | For the plebeians (like me), I think hand-coding skills will
       | always be relevant and necessary.
        
         | skybrian wrote:
         | It's unclear whether the price increases we saw for ride
         | sharing (for example) will come to AI. There's plenty of
         | competition and not much in the way of lock-in. And by the time
         | the bubble is over, the underlying costs may have dropped due
         | to improved algorithms.
         | 
         | It might be more like personal computing in the 80's, when
         | Moore's law resulted in both more usage and cheaper prices as
         | the tech improved.
        
       | brendanyounger wrote:
       | I'm in my mid-40's now. I taught myself C when I was 15. I have
       | no desire to use LLMs to pump out code.
       | 
       | I take comfort in re-reading much of the 70's and 80's literature
       | which focuses the possibilities of user experience. We still
       | haven't fully explored all the dreams of half a century ago.
       | 
       | If AI forces the business case that "code is cheap", I can only
       | hope we re-double our efforts at creating new interfaces and
       | capabilities for computer systems. The Meta glasses, Apple
       | Vision, and the like are small steps in this direction.
        
         | mentalgear wrote:
         | Interesting! Could you give some examples of these unexplored
         | fields/applications ?
        
         | kgeist wrote:
         | >I'm in my mid-40's now. I taught myself C when I was 15. I
         | have no desire to use LLMs to pump out code.
         | 
         | For me, it's the other way around: I'm glad that AI can write
         | code for me. A few months ago, I moved from an engineering role
         | to a researcher role exactly because I got tired of writing
         | code. Probably 95% of code/features (at least the kind you get
         | paid for) is just boring CRUD stuff where you move bytes from
         | one place to another and then show them in the UI (plus some
         | access rules and a few invariants here and there).
         | 
         | All of it was actually interesting in the first couple of
         | years. But when you do it over and over again for 20 years in a
         | row... Yeah. Sometimes there are interesting projects from time
         | to time, but usually it's the same stuff you've done countless
         | times. Deja vu.
         | 
         | In my current researcher role, my task is to explore novel
         | ideas, productize research papers, etc., and LLMs allow me to
         | quickly write prototypes and demos, play with various ideas,
         | without having to spend a lot of time manually moving bytes
         | from one place to another. It's fun again.
        
           | snicky wrote:
           | I'm in a similar age and career point and have similar
           | feelings about my SE job atm. Can you share more about your
           | transition to the researcher role? What field are you in, how
           | did you get there, what problems did you encounter, etc.
        
       | blither wrote:
       | A lot of this really resonates with me, but, as much as I
       | empathize with the Deep Blue analogy I don't fully subscribe to
       | it.
       | 
       | Maybe that's just me being naive! Feel like humans have always
       | been able to do more with more, not certain why now would be any
       | different.
       | 
       | Does not mean the role won't change and evolve! Building the
       | airplane while flying is part of the game, and to me is what
       | makes this field exciting.
        
       | camgunz wrote:
       | I think the thing that drives me nuts is that, while most people
       | think the result of programming is a program, I disagree. The
       | result of programming is one or more people who have a deep
       | understanding of a problem space. Codegen models still require a
       | human in the loop; that human has to be a software expert. You
       | only become a software expert by writing software.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-28 23:01 UTC)