100x harder if a human were to debug AI-generated code. I was merely citing other people's beliefs: AI can largely, if not completely, take care of debugging. And "better", rewrite the code altogether. I don't see how that could be a better approach, but that might just be me.

- Brooks' No Silver Bullet: no single technology or management technique will yield a 10-fold productivity improvement in software development within a decade. If we write a spec that details everything we want, we would write soemthing as specific as code. Currently people seem to believe that a lot of the fundamentals are well covered by existing code, so a vague lines of "build me XXX with YYY" can lead to amazing results because AI successfully transfers the world-class expertise of some engineers to generate code for such prompt, so most of the complex turns to be accidental, and we only need much fewer engineers to handle essential complexities.

- Kernighan's Law, which says debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Now people are increasingly believing that AI can debug way faster than human (most likely because other smart people have done similar debugging already). And in the worst case, just ask AI to rewrite the code.

- Dijkstra on the foolishness of programming in natural language. Something along the line of which a system described in natural language becomes exponentially harder to manage as its size increases, whereas a system described in formal symbols grows linearly in complexity relative to its rules. Similar to above, people believe that the messiness of natural language is not a problem as long as we give detailed enough instructions to AI, while letting AI fills in the gaps with statistical "common sense", or expertise thereof.

- Lehman’s Law, which states that a system's complexity increases as it evolves, unless work is done to maintain or reduce it. Similar to above, people start to believe otherwise.

- And remotely Coase's Law, which argues that firms exist because the transaction costs of using the open market are often higher than the costs of directing that same work internally through a hierarchy. People start to believe that the cost of managing and aligning agents is so low that one-person companies that handle large number of transactions will appear.

Also, ultimately Jevons Paradox, as people worry that the advances in AI will strip out so much demand that the market will slash more jobs than it will generate. I think this is the ultimate worry of many software engineers. Luddites were rediculed, but they were really skilled craftsmen who spent years mastering the art of using those giant 18-pound shears. They were the staff engineers of the 19th-century textile world. Mastering those 18-pound shears wasn't just a job but an identity, a social status, and a decade-long investment in specialized skills. Yeah, Jevons Paradox may bring new jobs eventually, but it may not reduce the blood and tears of the ordinary people.

Intereting times.

[1] Even investing extra time in thoughtfully crafted test papers, focusing on word problems, proofs, and complex derivations, could make a world of difference. How hard is that? China and USSR did it when they were dirt poor. France has been doing it and still produces world-class scientists and engineers. What the fuck is wrong with the American educators? Yeah, I know I know. I'm being emotional. I just don't get how dumbing down education can ever help kids.

I saw meme in X the other day, which roughly says that one does not have to learn if she learns slow enough in the age AI. I guess the undertone is that AI evolves faster than one can learn about the tricks of using it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47458044

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

This is exactly the argument in Brooks' No Silver Bullet. I still believe that it holds. However, my observation is that many people don't really need that level of details. When one prompts an AI to "write me a to-do list app", what they really mean is that "write me a to-do list app that is better that I have imagined so far", which does not really require detailed spec.

Yet if you ask people in the bay area, especially the those who are under 35, they would tell you that "Use Java? Over my deadbody". It's just amazing that people always chase shiny new things.

When a person writes code, the person reasons out the code multiple times, step by step, so that they don't make at least stupid or obvious mistakes. This level of close examination is not covered in code review. And arguably this is why we can trust more on human-written code than AI-produced, even though AI can probably write better code at smaller scale.

In contrast, Amazon asked senior engineers to review AI-generated code before merging them. But the purpose of code review was never about capturing all the bugs -- that is the job of test cases, right? Besides, the more senior an engineer is in Amazon, the more meetings they go to, and the less context they have about code. How can they be effective in code review?

Especially in a big co like Amazon, most senior engineers are box drawers, meeting goers, gatekeepers, vision setters, org lubricants, VP's trustees, glorified product managers, and etc. They don't necessarily know more context than the more junior engineers, and they most likely will review slowly while uncovering fewer issues.

I also think so, and in the meantime I have to admit a lot of people don't learn deeply either. Take math for example, how many STEM students from elite universities truly understood the definition of limit, let alone calculus beyond simple calculation? Or how many data scientists can really intuitively understand Bayesian statistics? Yet millions of them were doing their job in a kinda fine way with the help of the stackexchange family and now with the help of AI.

Another scenario of economics is that AI does not not necessarily output autonomously, but does output so much so fast that companies will require fewer workers, as the economy does not scale as fast to consume the additional output or to demand more labor for the added efficiency.