I have come to the conclusion that many people are going to live this AI period pretty much like the five stages of grief: denial that it can work, anger at the new robber barons, bargaining that yeah it kinda works but not really well enough, catastrophic world view and depression, and finally acceptance of the new normality.
What's the 'new normality' in the fifth stage? Do you think you'll start to believe it actually works 100%? Or that you won't change your assessment that it works only sometimes, but maybe pulling the lever on the slot machine repeatedly is better/more efficient than doing it yourself?
People will accept it as a way to build good software.
Many are still in denial that you can do work that is as good as before, quicker, using coding agents. A lot of people think there has to be some catch, but there really doesn’t have to be. If you continue to put effort in, reviewing results, caring about testing and architecture, working to understand your codebase, then you can do better work. You can think through more edge cases, run more experiments, and iterate faster to a better end result.
I'm not sure, but I think it boils down to accepting that some things we were attached to are no longer important or normal (not just software building).
But specifically to your examples, the latter: I think the "brute force the program" approach will be more common that doing things manually in many cases (not all! I'm still a believer in people!).
Edit:
Well, I wrote a bad blog post on this some time ago, I might as well share it: I think the accepting means engaging with the change rather than ignoring it.
It doesn't have to work 100% of the time to be ubiquitous! This is just the strangest point of view. People don't work 100% of the time either, and they wrote all the code we had until a couple of years ago. How did we deal with that? Many different kinds of checks and mitigations. And sometimes we get bugs in prod and we fix them.
The new normal will be: Everything will get worse and far more unstable (both in terms of UI/UX and reliability), and many of us will loose their jobs. Also the next generation of the programmers will have shallower understanding of the tools they use.
AI doesn't need to outrun the bear; it only needs to outrun you.
Once the tools outperform humans at the tasks to which they were applied (and they will), you don't need to be involved at all, except to give direction and final acceptance. The tools will write, and verify, the code at each step.
I remember that around 2023, when I first encountered colleagues trying to use ChatGPT for coding, I thought "by the time you are done with your back-and-forth to correct all the errors, I would have already written this code manually".
Less than 6 months ago I would say about 50% of HN was at the denial phase saying it's just a next token predictor and that it doesn't actually understand code.
To all of you I can only say, you were utterly wrong and I hope you realize how unreliable your judgements all are. Remember I'm saying this to roughly 50% of HN., an internet community that's supposedly more rational and intelligent than other places on the internet. For this community to be so wrong about something so obvious.... That's saying something.
> I hated writing software this way. Forget the output for a moment; the process was excruciating. Most of my time was spent reading proposed code changes and pressing the 1 key to accept the changes, which I almost always did. [...]
That's why they hated it. Approving every change is the most frustrating way of using these tools.
I genuinely think that one of the biggest differences between people who enjoy coding agents and people who hate them is whether or not they run in YOLO mode (aka dangerously-skip-permissions). YOLO mode feels like a whole different product.
I get the desire not to do that because you want to verify everything they do, but you can still do that by reviewing the code later on without the pain of step-by-step approvals.
The door is really opening for programmers who like getting stuff made, and really closing for those who like making stuff at a low level.
No need to get out the chisel to carve those intricate designs in your chair back. We can just get that made by pressing "1". Sorry, those of you who took pride in chiseling.
I'm definitely in the latter group. I can and do use AI to build things, but it's pretty dull for me.
I've spent hours and hours putting together a TUI window system by hand recently (on my own time) that Claude could have made in minutes. I rewrote it a number of times, learning new things each time. There's a dual goal there: learn things and make a thing.
Times change, certainly. Glad to be in semi-retirement where I still get to hand carve software.
I recently spoke to a very junior developer (he's still in school) about his hobby projects.
He doesn't have our bagage. He doesn't feel the anxiety the purists feel.
He just pipes all errors right back in his task flow. He does period refactoring. He tests everything and also refactors the tests. He does automated penetration testing.
There are great tools for everything he does and they are improving at breakneck speeds.
He creates stuff that is levels above what I ever made and I spent years building it.
The author has arrived at resentful acceptance of the models power(eg: "negative externalities", "condemn those who choose").
But the next step for many is championing acceptance. Eg "that the same kind of success is available outside the world of highly structured language" .. it actually is visible when you engage with people. I'm myself going through this transition.
They really shouldnt have read all the changes individually. What you gotta do is set up your VC properly so these changes are seperated from good code, and then review the whole set of changes in an IDE that highlights them, like a proto PR. Thats far far less taxing since you get the whole picture
giving partial credit to Rust, the language, for shipping production code because you "hate" the experience of agent-driven development so much is an amazing move. i didn't think we could push things forward so fast. i guess Rust is just that powerful
> I have no reason to expect this technology can succeed at the same level in law, medicine, or any other highly human, highly subjective occupation.
I mean, if anything, I would expect it to help bring structure to medicine, which is an often sloppy profession killing somewhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people a year through mistakes and out of date practices.
As medicine is currently very subjective. As a scientific field in the realm of physical sciences, it shouldn't be.
These takes are growing increasingly tiresome, I have to admit. They are pretty much all just tacit admissions of some kind of skill issue with this new class of tool, but presented with a sheen of moral outrage. I don’t think anyone’s buying it anymore. Figure it out.
128 comments
I'm still at the bargaining phase, personally.
Many are still in denial that you can do work that is as good as before, quicker, using coding agents. A lot of people think there has to be some catch, but there really doesn’t have to be. If you continue to put effort in, reviewing results, caring about testing and architecture, working to understand your codebase, then you can do better work. You can think through more edge cases, run more experiments, and iterate faster to a better end result.
But specifically to your examples, the latter: I think the "brute force the program" approach will be more common that doing things manually in many cases (not all! I'm still a believer in people!).
Edit: Well, I wrote a bad blog post on this some time ago, I might as well share it: I think the accepting means engaging with the change rather than ignoring it.
https://riffraff.info/2026/03/my-2c-on-the-ai-genai-llm-bubb...
Once the tools outperform humans at the tasks to which they were applied (and they will), you don't need to be involved at all, except to give direction and final acceptance. The tools will write, and verify, the code at each step.
We don’t have to accept things.
> yeah it kinda works but not really well enough
I mean, at some point it was true.
I remember that around 2023, when I first encountered colleagues trying to use ChatGPT for coding, I thought "by the time you are done with your back-and-forth to correct all the errors, I would have already written this code manually".
That was true then, but not anymore.
To all of you I can only say, you were utterly wrong and I hope you realize how unreliable your judgements all are. Remember I'm saying this to roughly 50% of HN., an internet community that's supposedly more rational and intelligent than other places on the internet. For this community to be so wrong about something so obvious.... That's saying something.
> I hated writing software this way. Forget the output for a moment; the process was excruciating. Most of my time was spent reading proposed code changes and pressing the 1 key to accept the changes, which I almost always did. [...]
That's why they hated it. Approving every change is the most frustrating way of using these tools.
I genuinely think that one of the biggest differences between people who enjoy coding agents and people who hate them is whether or not they run in YOLO mode (aka dangerously-skip-permissions). YOLO mode feels like a whole different product.
I get the desire not to do that because you want to verify everything they do, but you can still do that by reviewing the code later on without the pain of step-by-step approvals.
No need to get out the chisel to carve those intricate designs in your chair back. We can just get that made by pressing "1". Sorry, those of you who took pride in chiseling.
I'm definitely in the latter group. I can and do use AI to build things, but it's pretty dull for me.
I've spent hours and hours putting together a TUI window system by hand recently (on my own time) that Claude could have made in minutes. I rewrote it a number of times, learning new things each time. There's a dual goal there: learn things and make a thing.
Times change, certainly. Glad to be in semi-retirement where I still get to hand carve software.
He doesn't have our bagage. He doesn't feel the anxiety the purists feel.
He just pipes all errors right back in his task flow. He does period refactoring. He tests everything and also refactors the tests. He does automated penetration testing.
There are great tools for everything he does and they are improving at breakneck speeds.
He creates stuff that is levels above what I ever made and I spent years building it.
I accepted months ago: adapt or die.
But the next step for many is championing acceptance. Eg "that the same kind of success is available outside the world of highly structured language" .. it actually is visible when you engage with people. I'm myself going through this transition.
> I have no reason to expect this technology can succeed at the same level in law, medicine, or any other highly human, highly subjective occupation.
I mean, if anything, I would expect it to help bring structure to medicine, which is an often sloppy profession killing somewhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people a year through mistakes and out of date practices.
As medicine is currently very subjective. As a scientific field in the realm of physical sciences, it shouldn't be.