These llm agents don’t have “agency”. No intrinsic goal other than respond. A tutor has judgment and agency. You will get a really good pattern match on the input text you give but you won’t get tutoring.

I think the rewrites are the main story for llms in code (hot take). Writing greenfield code at the seams also something which might work well.

> Workflows like jira_close.yml use deprecated atlassian JIRA actions and have a dependency on the gh-actions repo. This is not ideal and unecessarily complex.

And then goes on:

> PR updates jira_close workflow to use direct API calls via curl.

Duplicating the logic into OUR codebase via a hand rolled curl, so we can get rid of “needless abstractions”. Auch. And of course the whole thing embedded into a yaml file.

This code is the typical kaleidoscope sometimes written by junior devs (and LLMs). On review you just kindly ask to be rewritten into a simple program or just close it as the effort doesn’t worth it.

I think this is the core point of the article. I really hope that we will stop prompting llms to refactor codebases and start using deterministic llm supported toolchains for such tasks. I think you either blindly trust an llm or you don’t. And no post-hoc review will be enough to contain llms, we will super quickly create “dark factory” without the benefits.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49230778

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Why not just write the code in the prompt so LLM can paste it.

I haven't read cynical comments, just ones pointing out that the article is cynical itself.

> addresses the core point

No it doesn't address anything, it is fear mongering question.

> I have yet to hear a single compelling plan for how we will prevent bioweapon development or massive hacking campaigns

Me neither, I just see marketing campaigns trying to raise valuation of a pre-IPO company.

> you need to suggest an alternative plan that addresses these concerns

I suggest that Dario stops writing marketing letters and start organizing a mostly neutral expert organization to propose solutions.

Also notice that as EU citizen I don't trust a US pre-IPO company's CEO with conflict of interest to suggest solution on resolving global security matters. Especially since he admittedly has no control over how the technology of his own company is deployed in global conflicts[1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2026/06/10/ant...