This might sound like snark, but I truly don’t mean it that way.
I think what’s interesting about AI, and why there’s so much conversation, is that in order to be a good user of AI, you have to really understand software development. All the people I work with who are getting the most value out of using AI to deliver software are people who are already very high-skilled engineers, and the more years of real experience they have, the better.
I know some guys who were road warriors for many years —- everything from racking and cabling servers, setting up infrastructure, and getting huge cloud deployments going all the way to embedded software, video game backends, etc. These guys were already really good at automation, seeing the whole life cycle of software, and understanding all the pressure points. For them, AI is the ultimate power tool. They’re just flying with it right now. (All of them also are aware that the AI vampire is very real.)
There’s still a lot to learn, and the tools are still very, very early on, but the value is clear.
I think for quite a few people, engaging with AI is maybe the first time ever in their entire career they are having to engage with systems thinking in a very concrete and directed way. Consequently, this is why so many software engineers are having an identity crisis: they’ve spent most of their career focusing on one very small section of the overall SDLC, meanwhile believing that was mostly all there was that they needed to know.
So I think we’re going to keep talking for quite a while, and the conversation will continue to be very unevenly distributed. Paradoxically, I’m not bored of it, because I’m learning so much listening to intelligent people share their learnings.
This is bad in tech. But at least we are (relatively) well equipped to deal with it.
My partner teaches at a small college. These people are absolutely lost, with administration totally sold on the idea that "AI is the future" while lacking any kind of coherent theory about how to apply it to pedagogy.
Administrators are typically uncritically buying into the hype, professors are a mix of compliant and (understandably) completely belligerent to the idea.
Students are being told conflicting information -- in one class that "ChatGPT is cheating" and in the very next class that using AI is mandatory for a good grade.
AI is starting to look like a net negative for humanity. I remember the early days of OpenAI. I was super excited about it. There was a new space to uncover and learn about. I was hopeful.
Now I have this love/hate relationship with it. Claude Code is amazing. I use it everyday because it makes me so much more efficient at my job. But I also know that by using it I’m contributing to making my job redundant one day.
At the same time I see how much resources we are wasting on AI. And to what end? Does anybody really buy the BS that this will all make the world a better place one day? So many people we could shelter and feed, but instead we are spending it on trying to make your computer check and answer your emails for you. At what point do we just look up and ask… what is the damn purpose of all of this? I guess money.
What I miss is people showing off their hand-crafted libraries or frameworks. That’s become way less common now that everyone is building a layer up the stack. I fear we’ll be stuck in a permanent state of using Tailwind and React and all the LLM-favored libraries as they were frozen in time at the beginning of 2025. Then again, that’ll be the agent’s problem, not mine…
All that said, it’s extremely exciting. I’ve been in tech, in one way or another, for 25 years. This is the most energizing (and simultaneously exhausting) atmosphere I’ve ever felt. The 2006-2011 years of early Facebook, Uber, etc. were exciting but nothing like this. The future is developing faster than we can process it.
How do I answer this without spamming: Yes, very much.
Everyone is in their own place adapting (or not) to AI. The disconnect b/w even folks on the same team is just crazy. At least it's gotten more concrete (here's what works for me, what do you do) vs catastrophizing jobpocolypse or "teh singularity", at least on day to day conversations.
Among non-programmers, you always hear about some fool that fell in love with an AI girlfriend or whatever, but you never hear about the people who open chatgpt up once, tried some things with it, said to themselves "huh, that's kind of neat" and then lost interest a day or two later, having conceived of no further items to which AI could provide assistance.
It's a black box that thinks for me, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it times out.
I am extremely skeptical of AI products anyone builds. It's just using one black box to build scaffolding around another black box and then typically want to charge money for it. I don't see any value there.
OK, if you take "talking about AI" to mean just talking about "three different people’s (almost identical) Claude code workflow and yet another post about how you got OpenClaw to stroke your cat and play video games" then sure, that would be pretty boring.
But I don't see it that way. I've been fascinated by AI since I was a little kid (watching Max Headroom, Knight Rider, Whiz Kids, Wargames, Tron, Short Circuit, etc in the 80's) up through college in the 1990's when I first read about the 1956 Dartmouth AI workshop that kicked the field off, and up to today where we have the most powerful AI systems we've had. Every single bit of this stuff is wildly fascinating to me, but that's at least in part because I recognize (or "believe" if you will) that there's a lot more to "AI" than just "LLM's" or "Generative AI".
I still believe there are plenty of neural network architectures that haven't been explored yet, plenty more meat on the bone of metaheuristics, all sorts of angles on neuro-symbolic AI to work on, etc. And even "Agents" are pretty exciting when you go back and read the 90's era literature on Agents and realize that the things passing for "Agents" right now are a pretty thin reflection of what Agents can be. Really understanding MAS's involves economics, game theory, computer science, maybe even a hint of sociology.
As such, I still find AI fascinating and love talking about it... at least in the right context and with the right people. :-)
And besides... as they[1] say: "Swarm mode is sick fun".
I really like this paragraph about management caring about AI:
> What makes this worse, is our bosses have bought into it this time too. My managers never cared much about database technologies, IDE’s or javascript frameworks; they just wanted the feature so they could sell it. Management seems to have stepped firmly and somewhat haphazardly into the implementation detail now. I reckon most of us have got some sort of company initiative to ‘use more AI’ in our objectives this year.
I'm like 99% convinced that most of the AI conversation upvotes at this point is astroturfing. I just don't see the correlation with the sentiment I get from talking to people in the real world (mostly negative AI sentiment) vs what I see here
I'm old enough to remember being fatigued with so many people talking about making "apps". Programs that run on a phone. Before that everyone was excited about blogging. Web 2.0 ugh.
Before that we were excited about the wheel and the creation of fire. All capital drained into those ephemeral fancies.
Gosh how i miss the old HN Days… where one would actually code, read docs, and develop stuff and feel happy about it. Not write a prompt and watch a chatbox do all the work in a matter of seconds. It’s like we’re losing the meaning of building something… dk how to explain it more. But yeah, it’s tech! Nothing stays the same
“Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone.”
— Karl Valentin
---
Personally, I'm still very interested in the topic.
But since the tech is moving very fast, the discussion is just very very unevenly distributed: There's lots of interesting things to say. But a lot of takes that were relevant 6 months ago are still being digested by most.
Yes. Go to Mastodon. I accidently stumbled on Mastodon last night (I knew about it of course but largely ignored it). Of the 100 or so posts they were all cool stuff. Only one was AI related and it was more a researchy geeky thing than the brainrot "I fired all my staff an hour ago. They were not happy. CRLF. CRLF. I have an agentic circus and I am the ringmaster of 666 agents. CRLF....." crap you get on Linked in.
To answer your question directly: yes I am bored of talking about AI. I think it’s funny how the folks who are screaming most loudly about their AI expertise typically have not built anything of value with it. They are so focused on the tool they have forgotten that the output is what mattered all along
I think the advancements around models and such are still somewhat interesting but its all the hype around peripheral things like OpenClaw, agentic workflows and other hyped up AI-adjacent news that are getting pretty old.
It's a conversational black hole. Every meeting with tech folks converges on what they're doing with LLMs these days.
Our local tech meetup is implementing an "LLM swear jar" where the first person to mention an LLM in a conversation has to put a dollar in the jar. At least it makes the inevitable gravitational pull of the subject somewhat more interesting.
I think what's crazy is the desire to replicate current day corporate structures. Look at this multi agent Jira story reading bot that builds stuff cause we let it churn overnight. Like the whole idea that you don't need that nonsense to build something amazing.
I think it's kinda double whammy, one the one hand working with AI leaves a lot of 5-15 minute breaks perfect for squeezing in a comment on a HN thread, while also supplanting the sort of work that would typically lead to interesting ideas or projects, substituting it with work that isn't that interesting to talk about (or at least hasn't been thought about for long enough to have interesting things to say).
This kind of feels like the same thing in which people talk more about the cameras they have instead of the photos they make, or the modular synth they built instead of the album they're working on with it. It's nice when it's confined to your hobby, but it's so weird when the whole world is talking about it. Imagine everyone going to a concert just to see the gear on the stage.
I’m bored of using the AI for anything other than my work. Because with my work I can give very detailed and structured prompts and get the best results, while also being able to evaluate the answer. For everything else I’m kinda worn out by second guessing all the time or having to enter a long thread until I get a decent response.
I'm largely bored of wrappers, what still interests me are the new modalities of models being released and progressed on like small local VLMs, voice to voice and tts
I’m confused why the hype and the investment got so high. And why everyone treats it like a race. Why can’t we gradually develop it like dna sequencing.
Is it a requirement to never write an article about AI without explicitly saying how “amazing”, “extraordinary” or “breathtaking” it is before saying anything else? It is like asking for forgiveness before the blasphemy. Forgive me, God, I know how incredible you are, but why do you need us talking about you all the time? How long until we start talking about AI for what it is, a normal technology, without the risk of being condemned for heresy?
I'm starting to believe that AGI really will cause a singularity, even before the technology exists: it's the only thing that will be talked about in my circles. People will forget to eat, families will be divided and split apart, houses will be foreclosed on due to neglect to pay the bills. It will be technology's last and eternal heroin high. The one you never experience coming down from.
AI is fine. The hype is annoying. What's even worse though are the incredible amounts of money and energy that are being thrown at it, with no regard for the consequences, in times of record inequality and looming climate apocalypse.
AI is the red herring that'll waste all our attention until it's too late.
No, well, I still enjoy the articles. The thing that always surprises me is the negativity in comment threads. I'm genuinely quite excited about AI based development. Yesterday I was playing around with developing a marketing plan for a market gap where we could leverage our product and finding what features in our product would need changing/adding to improve our offering. Quite interesting results!
It feels like during the previous hype cycle of bitcoins, blockchains and NFTs. People are trying to find uses for new technologies but it seems like a lot of the conversations come from people (at this point I guess it's still people?) trying to increase the hype. Maybe they are trying to be thought leaders or maybe they are trying to boost some stock valuations.
The topic of AI triggers people in various ways - anxiety and uncertainty about the future, frustration with excessive hype, and the debate between people on each side of the fence.
It will calm down once the dust starts to settle and there's some kind of consensus on how the chips have fallen.
Also there is an irony that talking about being sick of talking about AI is still talking about AI.
I mean, yes, I am bored. The emperor has no clothes.
I "tried" Claude the other day. It gave me 3 options for choosing, effectively, an API to call an AI. The first were sort of off limits, b/c my company… while I think we have a Claude Pro Max Ultra+ XL Premium S account, it's Conway's Law'd. But, oh, I can give it a vertex API key! "I can probably probably get one of those" — I thought to myself. The CLI even links you to docs, and … oh, the docs page is a 404. But the 404's prose misrepresents it as a 500.
Maybe Claude could take a bit of its own medicine before trying to peddle it on me?
We're on like our 8th? 9th? Github review bot. Absolutely none of them (Claude included) is seemingly capable of writing an actual suggestion. Instead of "your code is trash, here's a patch" I get a long-form prose explanation of what I need to change, which I must then translate into code. That's if it is correct. The most recent comment was attached to the wrong line number: "f-string that does not need to be an f-string on line 130" — this comment, mind you, the AI has put on line 50. Line 130? "else:" — no f-strings in sight.
Initially I rally had a bad taste in my mouth. It had forced me to close a business (video editing). Recently its gone a different direction so I would say the "interest" part got a resurgence for me. I'm seeing all of theses tools, people, and systems promise "can do this..." and "can do that..." but because I have a background in trust law and trust creation I've looked at things differently.
I think the "can do" part gets boring but now I'm paralleling this to trust relationships and fiduciary responsiblities. What I mean is that we can not only instruct but then put a framework around an agent much like we do a trustee where they are compelled to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries (the human that created them in this case).
The worst part in all that noise: ask your customers what they need ; they will tell you "AI features". No matter what it is, or even how it compares to more traditional approaches when it comes to solving their pains. These two letters got beyond obsession.
I'm so conflicted about it. My main worry is that I go all in and when I'm used to it the prices increase drastically and I can't work without it.
I'm also learning art and I'll never use AI here, so I thought I have less time for hobby programming and I could just use AI for that but then I come back to the concern I mentioned above.Plus I can't proudly share anything I made with it either because I wouldn't have done much of the work at all.
I'm also feeling burnt out about web dev in general and doing the same thing during my free time just feels like more work to my brain. I wish I could find something interesting to do, and if I don't I'll quit programming in free time for good.
No, but definitely tired of the "influencer" takes. You would think that this AI thing has been all but figured out, when really, even with the biggest openest claws we are still barely scratching the surface of a new era human-computer interaction
Most of boring is about people thinking AI is really intelligent. Thinking that it is magic. With magic comes the ghosts instead bugs. Who was lazy, will become even lazier. Engineers will keep building bridges... and also software.
As shown in "Normal Accidents" the strength is as high as its weaknesses, and in any complex system this is even more a problem. A catastrophic event is still to happen with AI as it happened in basically every complex system. They ocurred with trained people that wasnt believing in magic or laziness... so the scenario is even worse for AI.
Yes, I'm bored about people that believe in magic and the ghosts the are emerging and are yet to be seen.
Yes — talking and hearing/reading about it. I don’t fault folks for being excited when first getting into ut, but it’s rare to hear anything new said. And what is new is increasingly niche and unlikely to have any application to what I do.
So then...don't talk about it? Do your job. Go home. Spend time with family. Find some non-tech hobbies. The solution isn't to change the world but to break your social media addiction (and yes, HN/Linkedin/X are included).
I like the analogy to woodwork and hammer. It fits perfectly to what happens when they do not pay enough attention to the end result. They are not showing the actual product because it is not as shiny as their new agentic hammer.
“But they were all using basically the same hammer in the same way, so they were just screaming the same shit at each other at the top of their voices.” I don’t see it this way. I think we’re watching the nature of software engineering change permanently and profoundly in the span of months. Claude code 2026 and later means most engineers will no longer write most of their code. The nature of the work still includes design, but now requires dedication to figuring out how to break down work onto Claude instances and do so in an easily verifiable way.
I'm becoming more bullish on AI, but it's still frustrating how much of the metaphorical oxygen it's taking. I feel like I'm hearing less about developments in software tech outside of AI fields.
527 comments
I think what’s interesting about AI, and why there’s so much conversation, is that in order to be a good user of AI, you have to really understand software development. All the people I work with who are getting the most value out of using AI to deliver software are people who are already very high-skilled engineers, and the more years of real experience they have, the better.
I know some guys who were road warriors for many years —- everything from racking and cabling servers, setting up infrastructure, and getting huge cloud deployments going all the way to embedded software, video game backends, etc. These guys were already really good at automation, seeing the whole life cycle of software, and understanding all the pressure points. For them, AI is the ultimate power tool. They’re just flying with it right now. (All of them also are aware that the AI vampire is very real.)
There’s still a lot to learn, and the tools are still very, very early on, but the value is clear.
I think for quite a few people, engaging with AI is maybe the first time ever in their entire career they are having to engage with systems thinking in a very concrete and directed way. Consequently, this is why so many software engineers are having an identity crisis: they’ve spent most of their career focusing on one very small section of the overall SDLC, meanwhile believing that was mostly all there was that they needed to know.
So I think we’re going to keep talking for quite a while, and the conversation will continue to be very unevenly distributed. Paradoxically, I’m not bored of it, because I’m learning so much listening to intelligent people share their learnings.
My partner teaches at a small college. These people are absolutely lost, with administration totally sold on the idea that "AI is the future" while lacking any kind of coherent theory about how to apply it to pedagogy.
Administrators are typically uncritically buying into the hype, professors are a mix of compliant and (understandably) completely belligerent to the idea.
Students are being told conflicting information -- in one class that "ChatGPT is cheating" and in the very next class that using AI is mandatory for a good grade.
Its an absolute disaster.
Now I have this love/hate relationship with it. Claude Code is amazing. I use it everyday because it makes me so much more efficient at my job. But I also know that by using it I’m contributing to making my job redundant one day.
At the same time I see how much resources we are wasting on AI. And to what end? Does anybody really buy the BS that this will all make the world a better place one day? So many people we could shelter and feed, but instead we are spending it on trying to make your computer check and answer your emails for you. At what point do we just look up and ask… what is the damn purpose of all of this? I guess money.
All that said, it’s extremely exciting. I’ve been in tech, in one way or another, for 25 years. This is the most energizing (and simultaneously exhausting) atmosphere I’ve ever felt. The 2006-2011 years of early Facebook, Uber, etc. were exciting but nothing like this. The future is developing faster than we can process it.
Everyone is in their own place adapting (or not) to AI. The disconnect b/w even folks on the same team is just crazy. At least it's gotten more concrete (here's what works for me, what do you do) vs catastrophizing jobpocolypse or "teh singularity", at least on day to day conversations.
I am extremely skeptical of AI products anyone builds. It's just using one black box to build scaffolding around another black box and then typically want to charge money for it. I don't see any value there.
But I don't see it that way. I've been fascinated by AI since I was a little kid (watching Max Headroom, Knight Rider, Whiz Kids, Wargames, Tron, Short Circuit, etc in the 80's) up through college in the 1990's when I first read about the 1956 Dartmouth AI workshop that kicked the field off, and up to today where we have the most powerful AI systems we've had. Every single bit of this stuff is wildly fascinating to me, but that's at least in part because I recognize (or "believe" if you will) that there's a lot more to "AI" than just "LLM's" or "Generative AI".
I still believe there are plenty of neural network architectures that haven't been explored yet, plenty more meat on the bone of metaheuristics, all sorts of angles on neuro-symbolic AI to work on, etc. And even "Agents" are pretty exciting when you go back and read the 90's era literature on Agents and realize that the things passing for "Agents" right now are a pretty thin reflection of what Agents can be. Really understanding MAS's involves economics, game theory, computer science, maybe even a hint of sociology.
As such, I still find AI fascinating and love talking about it... at least in the right context and with the right people. :-)
And besides... as they[1] say: "Swarm mode is sick fun".
[1]: https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
> What makes this worse, is our bosses have bought into it this time too. My managers never cared much about database technologies, IDE’s or javascript frameworks; they just wanted the feature so they could sell it. Management seems to have stepped firmly and somewhat haphazardly into the implementation detail now. I reckon most of us have got some sort of company initiative to ‘use more AI’ in our objectives this year.
Before that we were excited about the wheel and the creation of fire. All capital drained into those ephemeral fancies.
The cycles cycle on.
---
Personally, I'm still very interested in the topic.
But since the tech is moving very fast, the discussion is just very very unevenly distributed: There's lots of interesting things to say. But a lot of takes that were relevant 6 months ago are still being digested by most.
Our local tech meetup is implementing an "LLM swear jar" where the first person to mention an LLM in a conversation has to put a dollar in the jar. At least it makes the inevitable gravitational pull of the subject somewhat more interesting.
You could use AI to do it! Fight fire with fire.
I'm neutral on AI - so far it seems useful but flawed. But I don't want to hear about it constantly.
The new GenAI architectures and tooling supported by them just give more fun things to do and fun ways to do it.
AI is the red herring that'll waste all our attention until it's too late.
It will calm down once the dust starts to settle and there's some kind of consensus on how the chips have fallen.
Also there is an irony that talking about being sick of talking about AI is still talking about AI.
I "tried" Claude the other day. It gave me 3 options for choosing, effectively, an API to call an AI. The first were sort of off limits, b/c my company… while I think we have a Claude Pro Max Ultra+ XL Premium S account, it's Conway's Law'd. But, oh, I can give it a vertex API key! "I can probably probably get one of those" — I thought to myself. The CLI even links you to docs, and … oh, the docs page is a 404. But the 404's prose misrepresents it as a 500.
Maybe Claude could take a bit of its own medicine before trying to peddle it on me?
We're on like our 8th? 9th? Github review bot. Absolutely none of them (Claude included) is seemingly capable of writing an actual suggestion. Instead of "your code is trash, here's a patch" I get a long-form prose explanation of what I need to change, which I must then translate into code. That's if it is correct. The most recent comment was attached to the wrong line number: "f-string that does not need to be an f-string on line 130" — this comment, mind you, the AI has put on line 50. Line 130? "else:" — no f-strings in sight.
"Phd level intelligence."
I think the "can do" part gets boring but now I'm paralleling this to trust relationships and fiduciary responsiblities. What I mean is that we can not only instruct but then put a framework around an agent much like we do a trustee where they are compelled to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries (the human that created them in this case).
Anyway it's got me thinking in a different way.
I'm also learning art and I'll never use AI here, so I thought I have less time for hobby programming and I could just use AI for that but then I come back to the concern I mentioned above.Plus I can't proudly share anything I made with it either because I wouldn't have done much of the work at all.
I'm also feeling burnt out about web dev in general and doing the same thing during my free time just feels like more work to my brain. I wish I could find something interesting to do, and if I don't I'll quit programming in free time for good.
I also have to say that I don't use AI in my personal or professional life. And that is simply because I haven't felt any need to use it.
As shown in "Normal Accidents" the strength is as high as its weaknesses, and in any complex system this is even more a problem. A catastrophic event is still to happen with AI as it happened in basically every complex system. They ocurred with trained people that wasnt believing in magic or laziness... so the scenario is even worse for AI.
Yes, I'm bored about people that believe in magic and the ghosts the are emerging and are yet to be seen.