> The limitation seems to be that you can't modify the code yourself if you want the spec to reflect it

Eventually, we'll end up in a world where humans don't need to touch code, but we are not there yet. We are looking into ways to "catch up" the specs with whatever changes happen in the code not through CodeSpeak (agents or manual changes or whatever). It's an interesting exercise. In the case of agents, it's very helpful to look at the prompts users gave them (we are experimenting with inspecting the sessions from ~/.claude).

More generally, `codespeak takeover` [1] is a tool to convert code into specs, and we are teaching it to take prompts from agent sessions into account. Seems very helpful, actually.

I think it's a valid use case to start something in vibe coding mode and then switch to CodeSpeak if you want long-term maintainability. From "sprint mode" to "marathon mode", so to speak

[1] https://codespeak.dev/blog/codespeak-takeover-20260223

▲

newsoftheday 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Eventually, we'll end up in a world where humans don't need to touch code, but we are not there yet.

Will we though? Wouldn't AI need to reach a stage where it is a tool, like a compiler, which is 100% deterministic?

▲

intrasight 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We will and soon because it does not have to be deterministic like a compiler. It only has to pass all tests.

	▲	my_throwaway23 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Who is writing the tests?

▲

vbezhenar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Compiler is not 100% deterministic. Its output can change when you upgrade its version, its output can change when you change optimization options. Using profile-guided optimization can also change between runs.

	▲	CWIZO 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you change inputs then obviously you will get a different output. Crucially using the same inputs, however, produces the same output. So compilers are actually deterministic.