I think we really need to have a serious think of what is "good quality" in the age of coding agents. A lot of the effort we put into maintaining quality has to do with maintainability, readability etc. But is it relevant if the code isn't for humans? What is good for a human is not what is good for an AI necessarily (not to say there is no overlap). I think there are clearly measurable things we can agree still apply around bugs, security etc, but I think there are also going to be some things we need to just let go of.
The implications to your statement seems to me that is: "you'll never have to directly care about it yourself, so why do you care about it?". Unless you were talking about the codebase in a user-application relationship which in this case feel free to ignore the rest of my post.
I don't believe that the code will become an implementation detail, ever. When all you do is ship an MVP to demonstrate what you're building then no one cares, before or after LLM assistance. But any codebase that lives more than a year and serves real users while generating revenue deserves to have engineers who knows what's happening beyond authoring markdown instructions to multiple agents.
Your claim seems to push us towards a territory where externalizing out thought processes to a third party is the best possible outcome for all parties, because the models will only get better and stay just as affordable.
I will respond to that by pointing out that, models that will ultimately be flawless in code generation will worth a fortune in terms of adding value, and any corporation that will win the arms race will be actually killing themselves by not raising the cost of access to their services by a metric ton. This is because there will be few LLM providers that actually worth it by then, and because oligopoly is a thing.
So no. I don't expect that we'll ever reach a point where the average person will be "speaking forth" software the same way they post on Reddit, without paying cancer treatment levels of money.
But even if it's actually affordable... Why would I ever want to use your app instead of just asking an LLM to make me one from scratch? No one seems to think about that.
i've been building agent tooling for a while and this is the question i keep coming back to. the actual failure mode isn't messy code, agents produce reasonably clean, well-typed output these days. it's that the code confidently solves a different problem than what you intended. i've had an agent refactor an auth flow that passed every test but silently dropped a token refresh check because it "simplified" the logic. clean code, good types, tests green, security hole. so for me "quality" has shifted from cyclomatic complexity and readability scores to "does the output behaviour match the specification across edge cases, including the ones i didn't enumerate." that's fundamentally an evaluation problem, not a linting problem.
This is where I think its going, it feels that in the end we will end up with an "llm" language, one that is more suited to how an llm works and less human.
You can’t drop anything as long as a programmer is expected to edit the source code directly. Good luck investigating a bug when the code is unclear semantically, or updating a piece correctly when you’re not really sure it’s the only instance.
I think that's the question. Is a programmer expected to ever touch the source code? Or will AI -- and AI alone -- update the code that it generated?
Not entirely unlike other code generation mechanisms, such as tools for generating HTML based on a graphical design. A human could edit that, but it may not have been the intent. The intent was that, if you want a change, go back to the GUI editor and regenerate the HTML.
> Not entirely unlike other code generation mechanisms, such as tools for generating HTML based on a graphical design. A human could edit that, but it may not have been the intent. The intent was that, if you want a change, go back to the GUI editor and regenerate the HTML.
We largely moved back away from "work in a graphic tool then spit out HTML from it" because it wasn't robust for the level of change/iteration pace, this wasn't exactly my domain but IIRC there were especially a lot of problems around "small-looking changes are now surprisingly big changes in the generated output that have a large blast radius in terms of the other things (like interactivity) we've added in."
Any time you do a refactor that changes contract boundaries between functions/objects/models/whatever, and you have to update the tests to reflect this, you have a big risk of your new tests not covering exactly the same set of component interactions that your old tests did. LLM's don't change this. They can iterate until the tests are green, but certain changes will require changing the tests, and now "iterating until the tests are green" could be resolved by changing the tests in a way that subtly breaks surprising user-facing things.
The value of good design in software is having boundaries aligned with future desires (obviously this is never perfect foresight) to minimize that risk. And that's the scary thing to myself about not even reading the code.
So like we went from assembler to higher level programming languages, we will now move to specifications for LLMs? Interesting thought... Maybe, once the "compilers" get good enough, but for mission critical systems they are not nearly good enough yet.
Right. I work in aerospace software, and I do not know if this option would ever be on the table. It certainly isn't now.
So I think this question needs to be asked in the context of particular projects, not as an industry-wide yes or no answer. Does your particular project still need humans involved at the code level? Even just for review? If so, then you probably ought to retain human-oriented software design and coding techniques. If not, then, whatever. Doesn't matter. Aim for whatever efficiency metric you like.
It’s also pretty close to Steve Jobs initial vision of computing in the future (https://stevejobsarchive.com/stories/objects-of-our-life, 1983) but my point is that whatever it is we call AI now became reality so much faster than anyone really saw coming. Even if the pace slows down, and it didn’t yet, things are improving so massively all the time that the world can’t keep up changing to accommodate.
I recently built something in the same universe - using ffmpeg to receive streams from obs to capture audio and video - don't want to get into details beyond except to say it involved a fairly involved pipeline of ray actors and a significant admin interface with nicegui. I had no problem doing this with claude. You need to give it access to look up how do things, like context7. If you are doing something very specific, you need to have a session that does research to build a skill so it doesn't need to redo that research every time. And yes, you do need to tell it the architecture and be fairly detailed with something like how you want rbac.
Using these tools takes quite a bit of effort but even after doing all those steps to use the tool well, I still got this project done in a few days when it otherwise would have taken me 1-2 months and likely simply would never happened at all.
You need to be in plan mode. Not only can it not change code, its interaction with you is quite different. It will surface issues and ask you for choices.
One of the ways the chinese companies are keeping up is by training the models on the outputs of the American fronteir models. I'm not saying they don't innovate in other ways, but this is part of how they caught up quickly. However, it pretty much means they are always going to lag.
Not true, for one very simple reason. AI model capabilities are spiky. Chinese models can SFT off American frontier outputs and use them for LLM-as-judge RL as you note, but if they choose to RL on top of that with a different capability than western labs, they'll be better at that thing (while being worse at the things they don't RL on).
They likely will lead in compute power in the medium term future, since they’re definitely the country with the highest energy generation capacity at this point. Now they just need to catch up on the hardware front, which I believe they’ve also made significant progress on over the last few years.
What is the progress on that front? People here on HN are usually saying China is very far away from from progress in competitive cpu/gpu space; I cannot really find objective sources I can read; it is either from China saying it is coming or from the west saying its 10+ years behind.
I think this is a pretty solid analogy but I look at the metaphor this way - people used to get strong naturally because they had to do physical labor. Because we invented things like the forklift we had to invent things like weightlifting to get strong instead. You can still get strong, you just need to be more deliberate about it. It doesn't mean shouldn't also use a forklift, which is its own distinct skill you also need to learn.
It's not a perfect analogy though because in this case it's more like automated driving - you should still learn to drive because the autodriver isn't perfect and you need to be ready to take the wheel, but that means deliberate, separate practice at learning to drive.
> people used to get strong naturally because they had to do physical labor
I think that's a bit of a myth. The Greeks and Romans had weightlifting and boxing gyms, but no forklifts. Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators with the wealth and free time to lift weights and box and wrestle. One of the things that we know about the famous philosopher Plato was that Plato was essentially a nickname from wrestling (meaning "Broad") as a first career (somewhat like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, which adds a fun twist to reading Socratic Dialogs or thinking about relationships as "platonic").
Arguably the "meritocratic ideal" of the Gladiator arena was that even "blue collar" Romans could compete and maybe survive. But even the stories that survive of that, few did.
There may be a lesson in that myth, too, that the people that succeed in some sports often aren't the people doing physical labor because they must do physical labor (for a job), they are the ones intentionally practicing it in the ways to do well in sports.
I can’t attest to the entire past, but my ancestors on both sides were farmers or construction workers. They were fit. Heck, my dad has a beer gut at 65 but still has arm muscles that’ll put me to shame — someone lifting weights once a week. I’ve had to do construction for a summer and everyone there was in good shape.
They don’t go to the gym, they don’t have the energy; the job shapes you. More or less the same for the farmers in the family.
Perhaps this was less so in the industrial era because of poor nutrition (source: Bill Bryson, hopefully well researched). Hunter gatherer cultures that we still study today have tremendous fitness (Daniel Lieberman).
My dad was a machinist, apprenticed in Germany after WW2. Always somewhat overweight (5'9", 225 lbs during his "peak" years), but he could lift guys up by their belt with one arm, and pick up and move 200+ lb metal billets when he got too impatient to wheel the crane over. Even at 85 now, he's probably stronger in his arms than most 60 year olds. But I'm also not saying ALL of his co-workers were that strong, either.
Takes mass to move mass. Most of the strongest people in the world look "fat" and usually have a hefty gut. Strong and jacked are orthogonal characteristics.
I know what you mean, but from a physics perspective, no, it just takes force to move mass. More mass will generate more downward force due to gravity, and more force in other directions due to momentum once it’s moving, but there’s more to generating force than just mass. I’m not a kinesiologist but I would think how much force muscles generate depends on the amount and size of the fibers (mass) but also on their contractive efficiency and the amount of energy they can obtain and employ to contract (not necessarily proportional to mass, involves cardiovascular fitness)
The fact that Greeks and Romans had weightlifting and boxing gyms for their athletes in no way makes it a "bit of a myth" that people used to get strong naturally by doing physical labor. For example, average grip strength of people under age 30 in the US has declined markedly just since 1985.
Why do you think that? It's definitely true. You can observe it today if you want to visit a country where peasants are still common.
From Bret Devereaux's recent series on Greek hoplites:
> Now traditionally, the zeugitai were regarded as the ‘hoplite class’ and that is sometimes supposed to be the source of their name
> but what van Wees is working out is that although the zeugitai are supposed to be the core of the citizen polity (the thetes have limited political participation) there simply cannot be that many of them because the minimum farm necessary to produce 200 medimnoi of grain is going to be around 7.5 ha or roughly 18 acres which is – by peasant standards – an enormous farm, well into ‘rich peasant’ territory.
> Of course with such large farms there can’t be all that many zeugitai and indeed there don’t seem to have been. In van Wees’ model, the zeugitai-and-up classes never supply even half of the number of hoplites we see Athens deploy
> Instead, under most conditions the majority of hoplites are thetes, pulled from the wealthiest stratum of that class (van Wees figures these fellows probably have farms in the range of ~3 ha or so, so c. 7.5 acres). Those thetes make up the majority of hoplites on the field but do not enjoy the political privileges of the ‘hoplite class.’
> And pushing against the ‘polis-of-rentier-elites’ model, we often also find Greek sources remarking that these fellows, “wiry and sunburnt” (Plato Republic 556cd, trans. van Wees), make the best soldiers because they’re more physically fit and more inured to hardship – because unlike the wealthy hoplites they actually have to work.
I think he was saying upper classes that didn't do much physical labor have existed since at least classical era and needed to do some kind of physical training to maintain strength?
> > Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators
> In the original form of the Olympics, a Roman senator would have been ineligible to compete, since the Olympics was open only to Greeks.
I did debate how to word that mixing of Greek and Roman things in the same sentence. I had emotional context I wanted to convey and considered a word like Decathlon there as more technically correct, but then fought the modern context that of the people that even know what the Decathlon is they know it in the context of it being a smaller event in the modern Olympics, from which perspective Olympics remains more technically correct as the modern English word for both.
As to the text you are quoting, I think it as much supports my claims as you think it doesn't. Ignoring the subject change from "weightlifting" (and sports more generally) to farming and soldiering, it mostly describes the general state of armies and feudalism in general through much of time: you have the rank and file from blue collar classes, and you have the officer corps from white collar classes. The wealthier class is fewer, but given more charge and importance. The lower class does more of the grunt work. The Romans had rich Officers and blue collar "enlisted".
The myth that I was referring to was that weightlifting is somehow a new invention because no one labors physically anymore. There have always been leisure classes that needed to lift weights as a hobby to get good at sports (and that class was also more often awarded medals in sports or important commands in armies, if we want to also connect to the blog post you quoted). As far as I'm aware there was never a period in recorded history where "everyone" was equally fit from physical labor and there was no such thing as training and gyms and needing leisure time to do that.
[Further tangent: Even "pre-history" and the modern (mis)conception of the "paleo ideal" idea of tribes of equally buff hunter-gatherers starts to fall apart when you ask questions about family units or what they think the "gatherer" side of the equation meant (and manage to divorce it from modern ideas of agriculture being highly intense labor) or what those societies would look like if more people lived to old age or how those societies survived things like the Ice Age (fattier and more hibernatory, because we are a mammalian species, we cannot escape that).]
> The ability of skinny old ladies to carry huge loads is phenomenal. Studies have shown that an ant can carry one hundred times its own weight, but there is no known limit to the lifting power of the average tiny eighty-year-old Spanish peasant grandmother.
Weightlifting and weight training was invented long before forklifts. Even levers were not properly understood back then.
My favorite historic example of typical modern hypertrophy-specific training is the training of Milo of Croton [1]. By legend, his father gifted him with the calf and asked daily "what is your calf, how does it do? bring it here to look at him" which Milo did. As calf's weight grew, so did Milo's strength.
This is application of external resistance (calf) and progressive overload (growing calf) principles at work.
"He was taken as a prisoner of war four times, but managed to escape each time. As a prisoner, he pushed and pulled his cell bars as part of strength training, which was cited as an example of the effectiveness of isometrics. At least one of his escapes involved him 'breaking chains and bending bars'."
If you do a single set of half of exercises you need to train each day of the week, rotating these halves, you get 3 and a half sets of each exercise per week.
Training volume of Bulgarian Method is not much bigger than that of regular training splits like Sheiko or something like that, if bigger at all. What is more frequent is the stimulation of muscles and nervous system paths and BM adapts to that - one does high percentage of one's current max, essentially, one is training with what is available to one's body at the time.
> people used to get strong naturally because they had to do physical labor.
People used to get strong because they had to survive. They stopped needing strength to survive, so it became optional.
So what does this mean about intelligence? Do we no longer need it to survive so it's optional? Yes/No informs on how much young and developing minds should be exposed to AI.
>if the goal is to build up your own strength
I think you missed this line. If the goal is just to move weights or lift the most - forklift away. If you want to learn to use a forklift, drive on and best of luck. But if you're trying to get stronger the forklift will not help that goal.
Like many educational tests the outcome is not the point - doing the work to get there is. If you're asked to code fizz buzz it's not because the teacher needs you to solve fizz buzz for them, it's because you will learn things while you make it. Ai, copying stack overflow, using someone's code from last year, it all solves the problem while missing the purpose of the exercise. You're not learning - and presumably that is your goal.
if you are doing equity statarb, its all low touch strategies, so yes the quants 'trade' in that they can write the strategies. The traders in that environment are more like support, usually.
I think this makes sense but I wonder if firecracker would work better than vagrant for this? I haven't used it before, though. I guess it might if you are trying to run gas town level orchestration.
Firecracker can solve the kind of problems where you want more isolation than Docker provides, and it's pretty performant.
There's not a tonne of tooling for that use case now, although it's not too hard to put together I vibe-coded something that works for my use case fairly quickly (CC + Opus 4.5 seemed to understand what's needed)
Personally, I have been using beads for a few days on a couple of projects. I also like https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/beads_viewer which is a nice tui for beads (with some additional workflow i haven't tried). I have found its been useful for longer, multi-session implementations. Its easier to get back into the work. I wouldn't go so far as to it couldn't do the work without it, but so far it seems smoother. These things are hard to measure. I think the it's really not that different than how an engineering team would use jira but more hierarchical, which helps preserve context, and with prebuilt instructions for how the agent should use it.
The skills that matter most to me are the ones I create myself (with the skill creator skill) that are very specific and proprietary. For instance, a skill on how to write a service in my back-testing framework.
I do also like to make skills on things that are more niche tools, like marimo (a very nice jupyter replacement). The model probably does known some stuff about it, but not enough, and the agent could find enough online or in context7, but it will waste a lot of time and context in figuring it out every time. So instead I will have a deep thinking agent do all that research up front and build a skill for it, and I might customize it to be more specific to my environment, but it's mostly the condensed research of the agent so that I don't need to redo that every time.
I think that is both pretty true but massively underrated in how much faster you can solve the problems you know how to solve. I do also help it finds helps me more quickly learn how to solve new problems, but I must still must learn how to solve these new problems I have it solve those new problems or things go off the rails.
reply