| ▲ | VincentEvans 8 days ago |
| There will be a a new kind of job for software engineers, sort of like a cross between working with legacy code and toxic site cleanup. Like back in the day being brought in to “just fix” a amalgam of FoxPro-, Excel-, and Access-based ERP that “mostly works” and only “occasionally corrupts all our data” that ambitious sales people put together over last 5 years. But worse - because “ambitious sales people” will no longer be constrained by sandboxes of Excel or Access - they will ship multi-cloud edge-deployed kubernetes micro-services wired with Kafka, and it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. |
|
| ▲ | mnky9800n 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I met a guy on the airplane the other day whose job is to vibe code for people who can't vibe code. He showed me his discord server (he paid for plane wifi), where he charges people 50$/month to be in the server and he helps them unfuck their vibe coded projects. He had around 1000 people in the server. |
| |
| ▲ | daveidol 7 days ago | parent [-] | | So wait is he an actual software engineer doing this as a side hustle? Or like a vibe coder guru that basically only works with AI tools? | | |
| ▲ | mnky9800n 7 days ago | parent [-] | | He said he used to be a software dev. Then he started consulting on the side making websites, doing SEO, and he just started doing that fulltime. But then SEO died because of AI (according to him anyways). then he started vibe coding like a year or two ago and saw all these people posting in forums about how everything they made broke and they don't know what to do. So he started helping people for money and it turned into a thing. I watched him text people and say "set up a lovable account, put in your credit card info then send me the login". Then he would just write some prompts for them on lovable to build their websites for them. Then text them back on discord and be like "done". He said he had multiple tiers, like 50$/month got you in the discord and he would reply your questions and whatever. but for 500$/month he would do everything you want and just chat with you about what you wanted for your incredible facebook replacement app for whatever. But I mean most of the stuff seemed like it was just some small business trying to figure out a way to use the internet in 2025. All this gave me anxiety because I'm here as an academic scientist NOT making 50$/month*1000 signups to vibe code for people who can't vibe code when I definitely know how to vibe code at least. Haha. Maybe I should listen to all my startup friends and go work at a startup instead. | | |
| ▲ | at-fates-hands 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >> But then SEO died because of AI (according to him anyways). Former web dev and I still do some SEO and for the most part, he's correct. I've posted on here multiple times over the last two to three years how easy it is now to manipulate search engines now. Back in the day, when you needed content for SEO and needed it to be optimized, you had to find a content writer who knew how to do this, or write it yourself and hope that Google doesn't bury your site for stuffing your content with keywords. Now? Any LLM can spin out optimized content in a few seconds. Any LLM can review your site, compare it to a competitor and tell you want you should do to rank better. All of the stuff SEO people used to do? You can do now in the span of a few mins with any LLM. This is lower hanging fruit than vibe coding and Google has yet to adjust their algorithm to deal with this. A few years ago, I cranked out an entire services area page for a client. I had AI write all the content. Granted, it was pretty clunky and I had to clean some of it up, but it saved me hours of trying to write it myself. We're talking some 20-30 pages that I gradually posted over the course of several months. Within a days, every new page was ranking page 1 within the top ten results. | |
| ▲ | BostonFern 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I need to start hanging out in more lucrative forums, apparently. | | |
| ▲ | simultsop 7 days ago | parent [-] | | You just might be in the right place. Asking same question, wait until someone will make a directory website to sell access to you to find those forums. |
| |
| ▲ | hasperdi 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Any pointers which forums do these people hang out? | | |
| ▲ | mnky9800n 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I wish. He said that in the beginning he built a core group just with direct contacts but then he started a YouTube channel to drive traffic to the discord. He paid my buymeacoffee.com link because I showed him my windowfied.com tool I made to let you have dir commands on osx instead of ls. I hope you can meet him on a plane too. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mr_toad 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A big part of the reason that people develop solutions in Excel is that they don’t have to ask anyone’s permission. No business case, no scope, no plan, and most importantly no budget. Unless a business allows any old employee to spin up cloud services on a whim we’re not going to see sales people spinning up containers and pipelines, AI or not. |
| |
| ▲ | boston_clone 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What about a sales person interacting with an LLM that is already authz'd to spin up various cloud resources? I don't think that scenario is too far-fetched... | | |
| ▲ | VincentEvans 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I imagine something along the lines of cloud platforms rolling out functionality that caters to vibe-coding crowd - one stop shop: you enter your prompts and it spins up your code along with the infra. I mean why wouldn’t they - seem like a goldmine. | | |
| ▲ | Breza 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Given how easy it is to spin up GCP resources with a text file, I'm surprised Gemini doesn't already offer this service. The prompt below gave me a 167-line file that uses Cloud Run, Cloud Built, Artifact Registry, Firestore, Maps, and IAM. >I'm creating an app for dog walkers to optimize their routes. It should take all client locations and then look for dog-friendly cafes for the walker to get lunch and then find the best route. I'm vibe coding this on GCP. Please generate a Terraform file to allocate the necessary resources. |
|
| |
| ▲ | zurtri 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So very true. And then over time these Excel spreadsheets become a core system that runs stuff. I used to live in fear of one of these business analyst folks overwriting a cell or sorting by just the column and not doing the rows at the same time. Also VLOOKUP's are the devil. | | |
| ▲ | boppo1 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Why also sorting by row? And why are vlookups the devil? my undergrad was finance, but I've self-learned a lot of CS. | | |
| ▲ | orand 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It's possible to sort just a single column, leaving all the columns beside it in their original sort order. That's very bad if you want to keep your rows in one piece. | | |
| ▲ | boppo1 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, duh yeah. That's such a natural thing to avoid I hadn't considered it |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | simultsop 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unless they have a linux with some libre office, I fail to see where there is no budget for Excel. Initially you have to keep up with windows licenses then office. | | |
| ▲ | denismenace 6 days ago | parent [-] | | An Office license is a must in most companies. So it will be there beforehand, you don't have to have a special budget for it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > and it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. This will be the big counter to AI generated tools; at one point they become black boxes and the only thing people can do is to try and fix them or replace them altogether. Of course, in theory, AI tooling will only improve; today's vibe coded software that in some cases generate revenue can be fed into the models of the future and improved upon. In theory. Personally, I hate it; I don't like magic or black boxes. |
| |
| ▲ | jack_h 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > or replace them altogether. Before AI companies were usually very reticent to do a rewrite or major refactoring of software because of the cost but that calculus may change with AI. A lot of physical products have ended up in this space where it's cheaper to buy a new product and throw out the old broken one rather than try and fix it. If AI lowers the cost of creating software then I'm not sure why it wouldn't go down the same path as physical goods. | | |
| ▲ | jrumbut 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Every time software has gotten cheaper to create the end result has been we create a lot more software. There are still so many businesses running on pen and paper or excel spreadsheets or off the shelf software that doesn't do what they need. Hard to say what the future holds but I'm beginning to see the happy path get closer than it looked a year or two ago. Of course, on an individual basis it will be possible to end up in a spot where your hard earned skills are no longer in demand in your physical location, but that was always a possibility. |
| |
| ▲ | worldsayshi 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The prevailing counter narrative around vibe coding seems to be that "code output isn't the bottle neck, understanding the problem is". But shouldn't that make vibe coding a good tool for the tool belt? Use it to understand the outermost layer of the problem, then throw out the code and write a proper solution. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > [create prototype], then throw out the code and write a proper solution. Problem is, that in everyones' experience, this almost never happens. The prototype is declared "good enough, just needs a few small adjustments", rewrite is declared too expensive, too time-consuming. And crap goes to production. | | |
| ▲ | ceuk 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Watching was supposed to be a prototype become the production code is one of the most constant themes of my 20 year career | | |
| ▲ | jmathai 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Software takes longer to develop than other parts of the org want to wait. AI is emerging as a possible solution to this decades old problem. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Everything takes longer than ppl want to wait. But when building a house, ppl are more patient and tolerant about the time taken, because they can physically see the progress, the effort, the sweat. Software is intangible and invisible except maybe for beta-testers and developer liaisons. And the visual parts, like the nonfunctional GUI or web UI, are often taken as "most of the work is done", because that is what people see and interact with. | | |
| ▲ | jmathai 7 days ago | parent [-] | | It's product management's job to bridge that gap. Break down and prioritize complex projects into smaller deliverables that keep the business folks happy. It's better than houses, IMO - no one moves into the bedroom once it's finished while waiting for the kitchen. |
| |
| ▲ | zppln 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, the org will still have to wait for the requirements, which is what they were waiting for all along. | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | until the whole company fails because lack of polishing and security in the software. Think tea app openly accessible databases... | | | |
| ▲ | YeGoblynQueenne 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or as a new problem that it will persist for decades to come. | |
| ▲ | ozim 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t really see this as universal truth with corporate customers stalling process for up to 2 years or end users being reluctant to change. We were deploying new changes every 2 weeks and it was too fast. End users need training and communication, pushback was quite a thing. We also just pushed back aggressive timeline we had for migration to new tech. Much faster interface with shorter paths - but users went all pitchforks and torches just because it was new. But with AI fortunately we will get rid of those pesky users right? | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Different situation. You already had a product that they were quite happy with, and that worked well for them. So they saw change as a problem, not a good thing. They weren't waiting for anything new, or anything to improve, they were happy on their couch and you made them move to redo the upholstery. | | |
| ▲ | ozim 7 days ago | parent [-] | | They were not happy otherwise we would not have new requirements. Well maybe they were happy but software needs to be updated to new business processes their company was rolling out. Managers wanted the changes ASAP - their employees not so much, but they had to learn that hard way. Not so fun part was that we got the blame. Just like I got down vote :), not my first rodeo. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | worldsayshi 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, that's how it is. And that is a separate problem. And it also shifts the narrative a bit more towards 'the bottleneck is writing good code'. | |
| ▲ | lwhi 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is the absolute reality. I think we'll need to see some major f-ups before this current wave matures. | |
| ▲ | sdeframond 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Problem is How much is it a problem, really ? I mean, what are the alternatives ? | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent [-] | | The alternative is obviously: Do it right on the first try. How much of a problem it is can be seen with tons of products that are crap on release and only slowly get patched to a half-working state when the complaints start pouring in. But of course, this is status quo in software, so the perception of this as a problem among software people isn't universal I guess. | | |
| ▲ | sdeframond 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure. How about the tons of products we don't even see? Those that tried to do it right on the first try, then never delivered anything because there were too slow and expensive. Or those that delivered something useless because they did not understand the users' need. If "complaints start pouring in", that means the product is used. This in turns can mean two things: 1/ the product is actually useful despite its flaws, or 2/ the users have no choice, which is sad. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > How about the tons of products we don't even see? Those that tried to do it right on the first try, then never delivered anything because there were too slow and expensive. I would welcome seeing a lesser amount of new crappy products. That dynamic leads to a spiral of ever crappier software: You need to be first, and quicker than your competitors. If you are first, you do have a huge advantage, because there are no other products and there is no alternative to your crapware. Coming out with a superior product second or third sometimes works, but very often doesn't, you'll be an also-ran with 0.5% market share, if you survive at all. So everyone always tries to be as crappy and as quick as possible, quality be damned. You can always fix it later, or so they say. But this view excludes the users and the general public: Crapware is usually full of security problems, data leaks, harmful bugs that endanger peoples' data, safety, security and livelihood. Even if the product is actually useful, at first, in the long term the harm might outweigh the good. And overall, by the aforementioned spiral, every product that wins this way damages all other software products by being a bad example. Therefore I think that software quality needs some standards that programmers should uphold, that legislators should regulate and that auditors should thoroughly check. Of course that isn't a simple proposition... | | |
| ▲ | tartoran 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree. Crapware is crapware by design not because there was a good idea but the implementation lacked. We're blessed that poor ideas were bogged down by poor implementation. I'm sure few good things may have slipped through the cracks but it's a small price to pay. |
| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. There is a reason for the push. The natural default of many engineers is to "do things properly", which often boils down to trying to guess all kinds of possible future extensions (because we have to get the foundations and the architecture right), then everything becomes abstracted and there's this huge framework that is designed to deal with hypothetical future needs in an elegant and flexible way with best practices etc. etc. And as time passes the navel-gazing nature of the project grows, where you add so much abstraction that you need more stuff to manage the abstraction, generate templates that generate the config file to manage the compilation of the config file generator etc. Not saying this happens always, but that's what people want to avoid when they say they are okay with a quick hack if it works. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | camgunz 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Coding is how I build a sufficiently deep understanding of the problem space--there's no separating coding and understanding for me. I acknowledge there's different ways of working (and I imagine this is one of the reasons a lot of people think they get a lot more value out of LLMs than I do), but like, having Cursor crank code out for me actually slows me down. I have to read all the stuff it does so I can coach it into doing better, and also use its work to build a good mental model of the problem, and all that takes longer than writing the code myself. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, actually there could be a separate step: understanding is done during and after gathering requirements, before and while writing specifications. Only then are specifications turned into code. But almost no-one really works like that, and those three separate steps are often done ad-hoc, by the same person, right when the fingers hit the keys. | | |
| ▲ | camgunz 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I can use those processes to understand things at a high level, but when those processes become detailed enough to give me the same level of understanding as coding, they're functionally code. I used to work in aerospace, and this is the work systems engineers are doing, and their output is extremely detailed--practically to the level of code. There's downsides of course, but the division of labor is nice because they don't need to like, decide algorithms or factoring exactly, and I don't need to be like, "hmm this... might fail? should there be a retry? what about watchdog blah blah". | |
| ▲ | naasking 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Well, actually there could be a separate step: understanding is done during and after gathering requirements, before and while writing specifications. Only then are specifications turned into code. The promise of coding AI is that it can maybe automate that last step so more intelligent humans can actually have time to focus on the more important first parts. | |
| ▲ | Ma8ee 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We used to call that Waterfall, and it has been frowned upon for a while now. So we went full circle, again. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Waterfall is a caricature straw man process where you can never ever go back to the drawing board and change the requirements or specifications. The defining characteristic is the part where design up front, you can never go back and really really have to do everything in strict order for the whole of the project. Just having requirements and a specification isn't necessarily waterfall. Almost all agile processes at least have requirements, the more formal ones also do have specifications. You just do it more than once in a project, like once per sprint, story or whatever. | | |
| ▲ | Ma8ee 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Waterfall certainly has processes for going back and adjusting previous steps after learning things later in the process. The design was updated if something didn’t work out during implementation, and of course implementation was changed after errors was found during testing. Now that agile practitioners have learned that requirements and upfront design actually is helpful, the only difference seems to be that the loops are tighter. That might not have been possible earlier without proper version control, without automated tests, and the software being delivered on solid media. A tight feedback loop is harder when someone has to travel to your customer and sit down at their machines to do any updates. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lwhi 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That thinking and understanding can be done before coding begins, but I think we need to understand the potential implementation layer well in order to spec the product or service in the first place. My feeling is that software developers will need end up working this type of technical consultant role once LLM dominance has been universally accepted. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pelario 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Personally, I hate it; I don't like magic or black boxes. So, no compilers for you neither ? (To be fair: I'm not loving the whole vibe coding thing. But I'm trying to approach this wave with open mind, and looking for the good arguments in both side. This is not one of them) | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Apart from various C UB fiascos, the compiler is neither a black box nor magic, and most of the worthwhile ones are even determinstic. | | |
| ▲ | viralpraxis 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m sorry for an off-topic, are there any non-determenistic compilers you can name? I’d been wondering for a while if they actually exist | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Accidental non-deterministic compilers are fairly easy if you use sort algorithms and containers that aren't "stable". You then can get situations where OS page allocation and things like different filenames give different output. This is why "deterministic build" wasn't just the default. Actual randomness is used in FPGA and ASIC compilers which use simulated annealing for layout. Sometimes the tools let you set the seed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dpoloncsak 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you're misunderstanding.
AI is not a black-box, and neither is a compiler. We(as a species) know how they work, and what they do. The 'black-boxes' are the theoretical systems non-technical users are building via 'vibe-coding'. When your LLM says we need to spin up an EC2 instance, users will spin one up. Is it configured? Why is it configured that way? Do you really need a VPS instead of a Pi? These are questions the users, who are building these systems, won't have answers to. | | |
| ▲ | drdeca 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If there are cryptographically secure program obfuscation (in the sense of indistinguishability obfuscation) methods, and someone writes some program, applies the obfuscation method to it, publishes the result, deletes the original version of the program, and then dies, would you say that humanity "knows how the (obfuscated) program works, and what it does"? Assume that the obfuscation method is well understood. When people do interpretabililty work on some NN, they often learn something. What is it that they learn, if not something about how the works? Of course, we(meaning, humanity) understand the architecture of the NNs we make, and we understand the training methods. Similarly, if we have the output of an indistinguishability obfuscation method applied to a program, we understand what the individual logic gates do, and we understand that the obfuscated program was a result of applying an indistinguishability obfuscation method to some other program (analogous to understanding the training methods). So, like, yeah, there are definitely senses in which we understand some of "how it works", and some of "what it does", but I wouldn't say of the obfuscated program "We understand how it works and what it does.". (It is apparently unknown whether there are any secure indistinguishability obfuscation methods, so maybe you believe that there are none, and in that case maybe you could argue that the hypothetical is impossible, and therefore the argument is unconvincing? I don't think that would make sense though, because I think the argument still makes sense as a counterfactual even if there are no cryprographically secure indistinguishability obfuscation methods. [EDIT: Apparently it has in the last ~5 years been shown, under relatively standard cryptographic assumptions, that there are indistinguishability obfuscation methods after all.]) | |
| ▲ | mr_toad 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > AI is not a black-box Any worthwhile AI is non-linear, and it’s output is not able to be predicted (if it was, we’d just use the predictor). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jiggawatts 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > There will be a a new kind of job for software engineers New? New!? This is my job now! I call it software archeology — digging through Windows Server 2012 R2 IIS configuration files with a “last modified date” about a decade ago serving money-handling web apps to the public. |
| |
| ▲ | mjomaa 8 days ago | parent [-] | | WebForms? | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and classic ASP, WCF, ASP.NET 2.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, etc… It’s “fun” in the sense of piecing together history from subtle clues such as file owners, files on desktops of other admins’ profiles, etc… I feel like this is what it must be like to open a pharaoh’s tomb. You get to step into someone else’s life from long ago, walk in their shoes for a bit, see the world through their eyes. “What horrors did you witness brother sysadmin that made you abandon this place with uneaten takeaway lunch still on your desk next to the desiccated powder that once was a half drunk Red Bull?” |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dhorthy 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When Claude starts deploying Kafka clusters I’m outro |
| |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's already happening brother, https://github.com/containers/kubernetes-mcp-server. | | |
| ▲ | dhorthy 8 days ago | parent [-] | | still don’t know why you need an MCP for this when the model is perfectly well trained to write files and run kubetctl on its own | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If it can run kubectl it can run any other command too. Unless you're running it as a different user and have put a bit of thought into limiting what that user can do, that's likely too much leeway. That's only really relevant I'd you're leaving it unattended though. | | |
| ▲ | gardnr 7 days ago | parent [-] | | You can control it with hooks. Most people I know run in yolo mode in a docker container. | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What about being in a docker container lets you `kubectl get pod` but prevents you from `kubectl delete deployment`? | | |
| ▲ | dhorthy 7 days ago | parent [-] | | this is more about the service account than the runtime environment i think. you put your admin service account in docker the agent can still wreak havoc. Docker lets you hide the admin service account on your host FS from the agent. | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Keeping the powerful credentials where the agent can't reach them does buy you a bit of safety. But I still think its a bit loose when compared with exposing an API to the model which can only do what you intend for that model to do. | | |
| ▲ | dhorthy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | sure fair enough. I guess i'm mostly being pragmatic here. Plus i'm not convinced that generating "kubectl"...json..."get"...json..."pod"... is easier for most models than "bash"...json..."kubectl get pod"... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | popcorncowboy 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes... a docker container... |
|
| |
| ▲ | gexla 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not sure about the MCP, but I find that using something (RAG or otherwise provide docs) to point the LLM specifically to what you're trying to use works better than just relying on its training data or browsing the internet. An issue I had was that it would use outdated docs, etc. | |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Claude is, some models aren't. In some cases the MCPs do get the models to use tools better as well due to the schema, but I doubt kubectl is one of them (using the git mcp in claude code... facepalm) | | |
| ▲ | dhorthy 8 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah fair enough lol…usually I end up building model-optimized scripts instead of mcp which just flood context window with json and uuids (looking at you, linear) - much better to have Claude write 100 lines of ts to drop a markdown file with the issue and all comments and no noise |
| |
| ▲ | nsonha 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > on its own does it? Did you forget the prompts? MCP is just a protocol for tool/function calling which in turn is part of the prompt, quite an important part actually. Did you think AI works by prompts like "make magic happen" and it... just happens? Anyone who makes dumb arguments like this should not deserve a job in tech. | | |
| ▲ | antihero 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I’ve literally asked Claude Code to look at and fix an issue on a cluster and it knows to use the cli utils. | | |
| ▲ | nsonha 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Because Claude has that as a built-in tool. Try Claude on web and see how useless AI is without tools. And don't even get me start with giving AI your entire system in one tool, it's good for toying around only. | | |
| ▲ | antihero 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Why would I use Claude on web to do that? Why would I use the wrong tool for the job? | | |
| ▲ | nsonha 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I am not saying you should. I am pointing out AI without tools (which I believe is what you think of when you refer to MCP) is useless. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Syntaf 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I allowed Claude to debug an ingress rule issue on my cluster last week for a membership platform I run. Not really the same since Claude didn’t deploy anything — but I WAS surprised at how well it tracked down the ingress issue to a cron job accidentally labeled as a web pod (and attempting to service http requests). It actually prompted me to patch the cron itself but I don’t think I’m that bullish yet to let CC patch my cluster. | | |
| ▲ | dhorthy 7 days ago | parent [-] | | oh yeah we had claude diagnose a production k8s redis outage last week (figured out that we needed to launch a new instance in a new AZ to pick up the previous redis' AZ-scoped EBS PVC after a cluster upgrade). |
| |
| ▲ | zer00eyz 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have seen a few dozen Kafka installs. I have seen one Kafka instal that was really the best tool for the job. More than a hand full of them could have been replaced by Redis, and in the worst cases could have been a table in Postgres. If Claude thinks it fine, remember it's only a reflection of the dumb shit it finds in its training data. |
|
|
| ▲ | Jtsummers 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Superfund repos. |
| |
| ▲ | throwup238 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Now that's an open source funding model governments can get behind. | |
| ▲ | binary132 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of big open source repos need to be given the superfund treatment | | |
| ▲ | notachatbot123 7 days ago | parent [-] | | A whole bigger lot of closed source software needs to be given the superfund treatment! |
| |
| ▲ | cruffle_duffle 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What makes you so sure it will have a repo? I don’t recall the last time Claude suggested anything about version control :-) | | |
| ▲ | mcny 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Claude will give what you asked for. My sensible chuckle moment was when I asked it to create a demo asp net web API and it did everything but add the authorize tag or any kind of authentication. I asked what was missing and until i mentioned it, it didn't mention authentication or authorization at all. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > Claude will give what you asked for. And how many know they need to ask for version control? |
| |
| ▲ | Traubenfuchs 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "As per my last email that contained the code claude wrote in a .pdf file I would like you to ask to fix two different users being able to see each others data if they are logged in at the same time, thank you for your attention in this matter." |
|
|
|
| ▲ | surajrmal 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does anyone remember the websites that front page and dreamweaver used to generate from its wysiwyg editor? It was a nightmare to modify manually and convinced me to never rely on generated code. |
| |
| ▲ | mr_toad 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree that the code that dreamweaver generated was truely awful. But compilers and interpreters also generate code, and these days they are very good at it. Technically the browser’s rendering engine is a code generator as well, so if you’re hand-coding HTML you’re still relying on code generation. Declarative languages and AI go hand in hand. SQL was intended to be a ‘natural’ language that the query engine (an old-school AI) would use to write code. Writing natural language prompts to produce code is not that different, but we’re using “stochastic” AI, and stochastic means random, which means mistakes and other non-ideal outputs. | |
| ▲ | djeastm 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I definitely remember that. Got paid $400 for my very first site in the early 00s. But we also didn't have an AI tool to do the modifying of that bad code. We just had our own limited-capacity-brain, mistake-making, relatively slow-typing selves to depend on. | |
| ▲ | slipnslider 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I still remember that Frontpage exploit in which a simple google search would return websites that still had the default Frontpage password and thus you could login and modify the webpage. | |
| ▲ | gr8niss 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | goosejuice 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Developers do that too. Consultants have be doing rescue projects for quite a long time. I don't think anything has or will change on that front. |
| |
| ▲ | pkdpic 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed, sometimes it seems like there are only two types of roles. Maintaining / updating hot mess legacy code bases for an established company or work 100 hours a week building a new hot mess code base for a startup. Obviously oversimplifying but just my very limited experience scoping out postings and talking to people about current jobs. Regardless this just made me shudder thinking about the weird little ocean of (now maybe dwindling) random underpaid contract jobs for a few hours a month maintaining ancient Wordpress sites... Surely that can't be our fate... | |
| ▲ | inejge 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Developers do that too. Not at that speed. Scale remains to be seen, so far I'm aware only of hobby-project wreck anecdotes. |
|
|
| ▲ | linsomniac 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. IMHO, there's a strong case for the opposite. My vibe coding prompts are along the lines of "Please implement the plan described in `phase1-epic.md` using `specification.prd` as a guide." The specification and epics are version controlled and a part of the project. My vibe coded software has better design documentation than most software projects I've been involved in. |
| |
|
| ▲ | aitchnyu 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do we have a method to let AI analyze the data within the DBs and figure out how to port it to a well designed db? I'm a fan of the philosophy of write strong data structures and stupid algorithms around them, your data will outlive your application, etc. Simple example is a Mongodb field which stores same thing as int or string, relationships without foreign keys in Postgres etc. Then frustrating shit like somebody creating an entire table since he cant `ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN` |
| |
| ▲ | danielbln 7 days ago | parent [-] | | "Claude, connect to DB A via FOO and analyze the data, then figure out to to port it to well designed DB B, come back to me with a proposal and implementation plan" |
|
|
| ▲ | meander_water 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think we're already there [0]. [0] https://x.com/PovilasKorop/status/1959590015018652141 Im really curious about what other jobs will pop up. As long as there is an element of probability associated with AI, there will need to be manual supervision for certain tasks/jobs. |
|
| ▲ | broast 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > it will be harder to find someone to talk to understand what they were trying to do at the time. These are my favorite types of code bases to work on. The source of truth is the code. You have to read it and debug it to figure it out, and reconcile the actual behaviors with the desired or expected behaviors through your own product oriented thinking |
|
| ▲ | josefx 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The description makes it sound like someone wanted to deploy a single static site and followed a how to article they found on hacker news. |
|
| ▲ | enos_feedler 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Its alright because you can shove all of that into an LLM and have it fixed instantly |
| |
| ▲ | worthless-trash 7 days ago | parent [-] | | See, you're using the definition of "Fixed" from the future, not the current definition of fixed. |
|
|
| ▲ | ssss11 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Foxpro, the horror |
| |
| ▲ | ddingus 7 days ago | parent [-] | | This whole discussion is blowing my mind! When I hit your comment: 1. I thought, "YES! Indeed!" 2. Then, "For Sale: Baby Shoes." 3. The similar feel caused me to do a rethink on all this. We are moving REALLY fast! Nice comment | | |
| ▲ | ddingus 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Sorry all. The short comment parent to mine tells a very suggestive story with high brevity. This is similar to Hemingway writing a story in a few words: "For Sale: Baby Shoes." The hook aspect of these appears similarly suggestive and brief and I thought that intriguing and thought provoking given the overall subject matter. And that just gave me some reference to the speed this whole tech branch has. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cruffle_duffle 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I for one can’t wait. It will be absolutely spectacular! |
