I echo this sentiment. Even though I'm having Claude Code write 100% of the code for a personal project as an experiment, the need for thinking hard is very present.

In fact, since I don't need to do low-thinking tasks like writing boilerplate or repetitive tests, I find my thinking ratio is actually higher than when I write code normally.

▲

jernestomg 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm with you, thinking about architecture is generally still a big part of my mental effort. But for me most architectural problems are solve in short periods of thought and a lot of iteration. Maybe its an skill issue, but not now nor in the pre-LLM era I've been able to pre-solve all the architecture with pure thinking.

That said architectural problems have been also been less difficult, just for the simple fact that research and prototyping has become faster and cheaper.

	▲	ratorx 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think it depends on the scope and level of solution I accept as “good”. I agree that often the thinking for the “next step” is too easy architecturally. But I still enjoy thinking about the global optimum or a “perfect system”, even it’s not immediately feasible, and can spend large amounts of time on this. And then also there’s all the non-systems stuff - what is actually feasible, what’s most valuable etc. Less “fun”, but still lots of potential for thinking. I guess my main point is there is still lots to think about even post-LLM, but the real challenge is making it as “fun” or as easily useful as it was pre-LLM. I think local code architecture was a very easy domain for “optimality” that is actually tractable and the joy that comes with it, and LLMs are harmful to that, but I don’t think there’s nothing to replace it with.

▲

Aeolun 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And thinking of how to convey all of that to Claude without having to write whole books :)

▲

MarcelOlsz 12 hours ago | parent [-]

tfw you start expressing your thoughts as code because its shorter instead

	▲	sodapopcan 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ya, they are programming languages after all. Language is really powerful when you really how to use it. Some of us are more comfortable with the natural variety, some of us are more comfy with code ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

▲

exodust 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agreed. My recent side projects involve lots of thinking over days and weeks.

With AI we can set high bars and do complex original stuff. Obviously boilerplate and common patterns are slop slap without much thinking. That's why you branch into new creative territory. The challenge then becomes visualising the mental map of modular pieces all working nicely together at the right time to achieve your original intent.