← Back to context

Comment by sroerick

7 hours ago

Man, as a former extreme skeptic, I watched a video from Eric Schmidt in early 2025 where he said that by the end of the year nobody would be coding, and that one was dead frickin on.

As far as I'm aware, aside from toy prototypes, all software is still built by humans coding, albeit with better auto-complete.

  • This seems to be more a problem of your awareness than a lack of projects.

    Apart from every software engineer I know building almost completely with AI now there have been numerous projects posted on HN that are AI coded.

    There's also Claude desktop which is famously all AI built and very widely used.

    • > now there have been numerous projects posted on HN that are AI coded.

      Yes, all of which are toy projects and get criticized every time they are posted. On actual serious projects, not someones pet home project, I've only seen "vibe coding" used in very low risk places like small UI components. And even then they are generally heavily tweaked after the fact.

      My anecdotal personal experience seem to agree with the general sentiment I see here on HN. Some people or companies do it, but with generally heavy criticism.

    • Have you ever considered:

      - that you don't know most people in the world

      - that some of the people you know are using these tools because they were forced

      ?

      2 replies →

  • It is all very unevenly distributed. SaaS and general web is basically on auto mode.

    A lot of infra is vibe coded nowadays too.

    Even prototypes are contributing to the speed of software development. Many people vibe code throwaway dashboards around the main platform which gives a lot of insights.

Everyone who started using claude clode when it came out in early 2025, knew it was coming (not quite yet). That felt more like reporting than prophesying.

You may be living in a bubble. There are tons of developers still coding by hand, and many industries that don't trust machine generated code in general.

  • It does raise the question, what percentage of programmers are predominantly writing code by hand? Is it higher than 50%?

  •   > many industries that don't trust machine generated code in general.
    

    Which ones? Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice? I work in one of the most conservative and highly regulated industries in the country. My company and every single one of my peer companies I have knowledge of has transitioned to almost exclusively 100% LLM-generated code (with plenty of human review).

    I don’t live on a coast and I have a large and broad social network. I don’t know anyone who still mostly codes by hand except the small amount needed to preserve some aspect of their skills. I’m sorry to say that if I did I’d consider them foolish. Even a very restrictive workflow where you used an LLM to specify granular edits you intend to make is vastly faster than doing it by hand. And the level of test coverage and depth you can achieve now is simply life-changing.

    It’s much more likely that you are not a professional, or you are the one in a bubble.

    • >Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice?

      I have come to understand that LLM generated code, even when carefully reviewed, ends up being hard to review as time progress.

      This is because when you are coding yourselves, you get a first hand sense of the complexity creeping in. Then you refactor some stuff to keep complexity in check. LLMs does not "feel" such friction, and will happily keep adding on complexity until meaningful reviews are impossible beyond a certain point.

      At this point, you need an LLM to review the changes and at that point, all bets are off.

      1 reply →

    • > Which ones?

      Any that value correctness over speed. Banking, safety critical embedded work, aerospace work, etc.

      > Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice?

      Because anyone who has been in the industry for a while knows that code review is not a substitute for intentionality and understanding when writing the code. To properly validate a change you must fully understand the intention behind it and the design at play, and then check the changes made against the system design. That is best done by a human subject matter expert (this is the role which software developers have traditionally filled, for anyone new to the industry).

      > I work in one of the most conservative and highly regulated industries in the country. My company and every single one of my peer companies I have knowledge of has transitioned to almost exclusively 100% LLM-generated code (with plenty of human review).

      That's called "being in a bubble".

      > I don’t live on a coast and I have a large and broad social network. I don’t know anyone who still mostly codes by hand except the small amount needed to preserve some aspect of their skills. I’m sorry to say that if I did I’d consider them foolish.

      And I think it's foolish to let your coding and critical thinking skills atrophy like this, but you do you.

      > It’s much more likely that you are not a professional, or you are the one in a bubble.

      Not even worth a reply.

      3 replies →

    • So no one is in control at the wheel? Just press a button?

      I can see in the future in school or on the job. Oral testing is coming back. You’re gonna have to explain everything you are doing at some point to your teacher/boss or to a panel of your peers in detail.

Dario Amodei and Eric Schmidt seem fairly well-calibrated, although a bit early. Elon Musk is constantly way, way overoptimistic (perhaps to the point of willful fraud). Zitron is hopelessly and ridiculously incompetent (and there are allegations he is willfully lying, too, but who knows).