Comment by tptacek
8 days ago
The problem with this argument is that if I'm right, the hype cycle will continue for a long time before it settles (because this is a particularly big problem to have made a dent in), and for that entire span of time skepticism will have been the wrong position.
I think it depends a lot on what you think "wrong position" means. I think skepticism only really goes wrong when it refuses to see the truth in what it's questioning long past the point where it's reasonable. I don't think we're there yet. For example, questions like "What is the long term effect on a code base" take us seeing the long term. Or there are legitimate questions about the ROI of learning and re-learn rapidly changing tools. What's worth it to you may not be in other situations.
I also think hype cycles and actual progress can have a variety of relationships. After Bubble 1.0 burst, there were years of exciting progress without a lot of hype. Maybe we'll get something similar here, as reasonable observers are already seeing the hype cycle falter. E.g.: https://www.economist.com/business/2025/05/21/welcome-to-the...
And of course, it all hinges on you being right. Which I get you are convinced of, but if you want to be thorough, you have to look at the other side of it.
Well, two things. First, I spent a long time being wrong about this; I definitely looked at the other side. Second, the thing I'm convinced of is kind of objective? Like: these things build working code that clears quality thresholds.
But none of that really matters; I'm not so much engaging on the question of whether you are sold on LLM coding (come over next weekend though for the grilling thing we're doing and make your case then!). The only thing I'm engaging on here is the distinction between the hype cycle, which is bad and will get worse over the coming years, and the utility of the tools.
Thanks! If I can make it I will. (The pinball museum project is sucking up a lot of my time as we get toward launch. You should come by!)
I think that is one interesting question that I'll want to answer before adoption on my projects, but it definitely isn't the only one.
And maybe the hype cycle will get worse and maybe it won't. Like The Economist, I'm starting to see a turn. The amount of money going into LLMs generally is unsustainable, and I think OpenAI's recent raise is a good example: round 11, $40 billion dollar goal, which they're taking in tranches. Already the largest funding round in history, and it's not the last one they'll need before they're in the black. I could easily see a trough of disillusionment coming in the next 18 months. I agree programming tools could well have a lot of innovation over the next few years, but if that happens against a backdrop of "AI" disillusionment, it'll be a lot easier to see what they're actually delivering.
So? The better these tools get, the easier they will be to get value out of. It seems not unwise to let them stabilize before investing the effort and getting the value out, especially if you’re working in one of the areas/languages where they’re still not as useful.
Learning how to use a tool once is easy, relearning how to use a tool every six months because of the rapid pace of change is a pain.
This isn't responsive to what I wrote. Letting the tools stabilize is one thing, makes perfect sense. "Waiting until the hype cycle dies" is another.
I suspect the hype cycle and the stabilization curves are relatively in-sync. While the tools are constantly changing, there's always a fresh source of hype, and a fresh variant of "oh you're just not using the right/newest/best model/agent/etc." from those on the hype train.
4 replies →