I can't help but cringe at the "cost of code is now zero" meme that this article repeats because in my experience the biggest cost of code was always the activities around the code - planning, communicating, reviewing, validating. This author, despite repeating the meme, seems to agree. Their emphasis on writing PR descriptions and specs for humans rhymes with my experience and it sounds like a nicer way to work than chasing some dark factory fever dream.

I also thought the "Two Modes of Working" section was useful. People get wildly different results from coding agents depending on how they use them, but I've not seen a lot of actual guidance on when to do X vs Y.

Personally, I've been using what the author calls "sidekick mode" since last October - before the supposed "AI got good now" threshold - and agree it's a more useful default for an engineer than "delegate mode".

The post takes a while to get around to saying that, and could have included more detail besides the workflow diagram and table (which they flag as only "an example of" such a harness), but it does answer the question. It's a different kind of tool because it's a model rather than a harness+model pair.

With changes like substantial refactors or ambitious feature additions, it's easy to exceed the infamous "seven things I can remember at once":

  * the idea for the big change itself
  * my reason for making the change
  * the relevant components and how they currently work
  * the new way they'll fit together after the change
  * the messy intermediate state when I'm half finished but still need a working system to get feedback
  * edge cases I'm ignoring for now but will have to tackle eventually
  * actual code changes
  * how I'm going to test this

  * wiring a new parameter through several layers
  * writing a test harness for an untested component
  * experimentally adding multibyte character support on a branch

The main benefit is to defer the concern until I have a mostly working system. Then I come back and review its output, since I'm still responsible for what it delivers, and I want better than "mostly working".

> For a limited time we're including Codex with ChatGPT Free

Is this the first free frontier coding agent? (I know there have been OSS coding agents for years, but not Codex/Claude Code.)

I think there's plenty to agree with in the article's descriptions of failure and hubris. What the critical commenters are taking issue with is that the article blames those symptoms on a straw man. It's a persuasive article, not a historical review, so it's reasonable to debate its conclusion and reasoning as well as its supporting evidence.

The way I learned "systems thinking" explicitly includes the perspectives this article offers to refute it - a system model is useful but only a model, it is better used to understand an existing system than to design a new one, assume the system will react to resist intervention. I've found this definition of systems thinking extremely useful as a way to look reductively at a complex system - e.g. we keep investing in quality but having more outages anyway, maybe something is optimizing for the wrong goal - and intervene to shift behaviour without tearing down the whole thing, something this article dismisses as impossible.

The author and I would agree on Gall's Law. But the author's conclusion to "start with a simple system that works" commits the same hubris that the article, and Gall, warn against - how do you know the "simple" system you design will work, or will be simple? You can't know either of those things just by being clever. You have to see the system working in reality, and you have to see if the simplicity you imagined actually corresponds to how it works in reality. Gall's Law isn't saying "if you start simple it will work", it's saying "if it doesn't work then adding complexity won't fix it".

This article reads a bit like the author has encountered resistance from people in the past from people who cited "systems thinking" as the reason for their resistance, and so the author wants to discredit that term. Maybe the term means different things to different people, or it's been used in bad faith. But what the article attacks isn't systems thinking as I know it, more like high modernism. The author and systems thinking might get along quite well if they ever actually met.

I doubt the staff would expect or pressure you to take responsibility for him. If anything you might have trouble getting them to even discuss his case with you - different states vary but in some cases they won't share case details without explicit permission from the patient. (If that sounds frustrating given your first hand experience of his symptoms and their progression - I sympathise.)

The support groups in particular may be useful despite that, just because you mentioned he's a housemate, so he may continue to be in your life. When I attended there were spouses, parents, but also just friends who wanted to help out their friend and understand what they were going through, without adopting responsibility for them.

It sounds to me like you did the right thing - situations like this can get worse if left unchecked and have serious consequences for the person in question and those around them. I'm not diagnosing your friend - I'm no expert, and various disorders can have those symptoms - but there are resources out there about (e.g.) mood disorders [1] that might give you some perspective and advice.

Treatment can help, and can make a huge difference. Hospitals are unpleasant but can sometimes be the only way for someone who needs treatment to receive it. I am certainly no legal expert, but I think if he was forcibly committed to a hospital and police were involved, he's unlikely to be released without accepting treatment.

You might find it helpful to join a support group for caregivers (e.g. [2]). In my experience it's common for friends as well as family members to attend those. People will offer resources and advice, as well as just sharing their experience, which can provide perspective and help with feeling lost.

Also consider (if you're not already) finding a therapist of your own. People in one of these episodes can push boundaries, say things to you they wouldn't normally mean, and generally be hard to be around while maintaining your own health and boundaries - particularly if you're invested in trying to help them.

[1] https://www.dbsalliance.org/education/ [2] https://www.dbsalliance.org/support/chapters-and-support-gro...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26413425

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

My employer uses three of these heavily (ElastiCache, Kinesis and Lambda) and we get quite a bit of leverage out of them.

ElastiCache in particular surprised me. At first glance I mistook it for a transparent (and expensive) wrapper around sticking Redis on an EC2 instance, but if your usage is heavy enough to need multi-node clusters (e.g. read replicas or full Redis Cluster), its orchestration features are pretty useful. We can resize instances, fail over to a replica, and reshard clusters, with zero downtime, by clicking a button (or a one-line Terraform change). And never having to install security patches is nice too.

It certainly is expensive, though. (But if you're not willing to pay a premium for managed infra, what are you doing on AWS in the first place?)

That HBR article I linked in the other thread actually addresses that. Their survey indicates that people are deterred less by lack of confidence in their abilities, and more by lack of confidence in your process to assess their abilities in the absence of a credential. The top-given reason (from both women and men) for not applying was “I didn’t think they would hire me since I didn’t meet the qualifications, and I didn’t want to waste my time and energy.”

Now maybe you're actively looking for people who hustle and won't take no for an answer (which isn't quite the same thing as "confident in their abilities"). Maybe that's your team culture, or your company culture. That's certainly your choice if so.