…
I’ve grouped these four perspectives, but everything here is a spectrum. Depending on the context or day, you might find yourself at any point on the graph. And I’ve attempted to describe each perspectively [sic] generously, because I don’t believe that any are inherently good or bad. I find myself switching between perspectives throughout the day as I implement features, use tools, and read articles. A good team is probably made of members from all perspectives.
Which perspective resonates with you today? Do you also find yourself moving around the graph?
…
An interesting question from Sean McPherson. He sounds like he’s focussed on LLMs for software development, for which I’ve drifted around a little within the left-hand-side of the graph. But perhaps right now, this morning, you could simplify my feelings like this:
As I’ve mentioned: the other week I had a coding AI help me with some code that interacted with the Google Sheets API. I know exactly how I’d go about it, but that journey would have to start with re-learning the Google Sheets API, getting an API key and giving it the appropriate permissions, and so on. That’s the kind of task that I’d be happy to outsource to a less-experienced programmer who I knew would bring a somewhat critical eye for browsing StackOverflow, and then give them some pointers on what came back, so it’s a fine candidate for an AI to step in and give it a go. Plus: I’d be treating the output as “legacy code” from the get-go, and (because the resulting tool was only for my personal use) I wasn’t too concerned with the kinds of security and accessibility considerations that GenAI can often make a pig’s ear of. So I was able to palm off the task onto Claude Sonnet and get on with something else in the meantime.
If I wanted to do something completely outside of my wheelhouse: say – “write a program in Fortran to control a robot arm” – an AI wouldn’t be a great choice. Sure, I could “vibe code” something like that, but I’d have no idea whether what it produced was any good! It wouldn’t even be useful as a springboard to learning how to do that, because I don’t have the underlying fundamentals in robotics nor Fortran. I’d be producing AI slop in software form: the kind of thing that comes out when non-programmers assume that AI can completely bridge the gap between their great business idea and a fully working app!
They’ll get a prototype that seems to do what you want, if you squint just right, but the hard part of software engineering isn’t making a barebones proof-of-concept! That’s the easy bit! (That’s why AI can do it pretty well!) The hard bit is making it work all the time, every time; making it scale; making it safe to use; making it maintainable; making it production-ready… etc.
But I do benefit from coding AI sometimes. GenAI’s good at summarisation, which in turn can make it good at relatively-quickly finding things in a sprawling codebase where your explanation of those things is too-woolly to use a conventional regular expression search. It’s good at generating boilerplate that’s broadly-like examples its seen before, which means it can usually be trusted to put together skeleton applications. It’s good at “guessing what comes next” – being, as it is, “fancy autocomplete” – which means it can be helpful for prompting you for the right parameters for that rarely-used function or for speculating what you might be about to do with the well-named variable you just created.
Anyway: Sean’s article was pretty good, and it’s a quick and easy read. Once you’ve read it, perhaps you’ll share where you think you sit, on his diagram?