Just to preface, this isn't the typical "Am I being replaced by vibe coding" post. I just had a talk with one of my first ongoing clients, who sort of helped me kickstart my freelancing "career". He is one of those…
I just had a talk with one of my first ongoing clients, who sort of helped me kickstart my freelancing "career". He is one of those people who has a broad understanding of the tech out there, and what its capabilities are, but is not a programmer. He wanted to show me, and get my opinion on a restaurant management app that he's been using Lovable to develop. Admittedly, a lot of it is very impressive, and he has obviously become very good at using these tools. Part of that scares me, but I've largely accepted the reality that my skillset has to expand beyond being a React code monkey (wish is not what I am, but you get the point). I've always been a curious generalist, so picking up new stuff comes easily, and I'll manage.
Anyways, here's the part that feels really gross. He's working on a feature that does some automated marketing using Higgsfield, so automated slop posting. Also a feature that consumes reviews from vendors, and he intends to use agents to post reviews as well.
I'm 43, I managed to convince my parents to get AOL when I was 12. I made a Geocities site at 14. I've been obsessed with computers and the internet for my entire life. I'm also an artist who had a somewhat successful run as a touring musician, much to the detriment of my career growth (not much money in Punk).
I feel the hobbies that I've been nurturing for my entire life are being destroyed by people who have finally found an entry point that requires the smallest amount of effort. We are literally watching the dead internet happen in real time, social media turning into a AI slop gallery, AI music topping the charts, and I just had a one-on-one conversation with someone that just doesn't care, because they get to feel creative for possibly the first time ever.
How are you all dealing with this?
51 comments
Unfortunately, generally if people can do something, they will. And with AI systems they have been given one of the largest short cuts possible, thus they take it relentlessly. There is no concern for quality so long as it is good enough to benefit them.
They will try to rationalize it but it typically ends up in moral corruption of "If I don't, they will."
It saddens me because I saw the vision of what computers and connected technology could be in the 90's and 2000's, only to see it turn bitter.
I remember reading an essay by Richard Stallman calling all this kind of stuff out in the late 1980's and I kind of hate that he got it so right. In assuming that many will take the power play and the convenience means that this is the path we take.
The more you can walk away form this stuff the better even if you don't want to.
What essay is that?
I think the same is true for images, videos, and music. The cost of producing content is approaching zero, but taste, originality, judgment, and intent still matter.
In a world where anyone can create almost anything, having good taste could become increasingly important.
The latest models from OpenAI and Anthropic are starting to develop taste imo. Specifically Astra and Opus 5.5.
It's not quite there yet, but also far from the slop models were producing this time last year.
What is happening now is that we are essentially abstracting away the entire coding layer, and partly even architecture and technology all at once (we aren't quite there yet, but we will be soon). What hasn't changed, and never will, is the human vision, the ideas of how new, innovative software (rather than just a clone) should be structured and how it should function.
I believe this shift is highly democratizing. It means teenagers can build cool new games, and financial minds can create the next great finance app. The hard part is no longer the programming itself; it is the software craftsmanship. It is about building an innovative and genuinely useful product, rather than just writing complex code (an identity we programmers have clung to for a long time). We have transitioned from being mere coders to true developers.
I also hope that young people today get the same opportunity to connect with software development as we did back in the Commodore 64 era. Only today, it isn't about squeezing every last drop of performance out of limited hardware, it is about bringing something truly useful or fun straight from your imagination into reality.
How are we so sure? I'm not old enough to have lived through every/many big shifts in our industry but how do we know this is not what people who lived through the compiler-shift era felt? Or people who saw higher level languages like C or C++ be created, or the punch cards getting replaced with a digital display?
This AI stuff feels magical and so much bigger than other shifts, but maybe only in retrospect.
Skilled programmers may continue to be able to work with it, but only while their understanding of what the software is holds out. In my opinion there is no learning to be had with these tools beyond familiarizing someone with the beginner stages of what programming arts can produce. Things like version control, explanation of fundamental data structures, easily understood scripts, etc.
But when the "sloppification" creeps in on large projects (which happened before AI but is much faster these days), the opacity of the codebase increases an order of magnitude faster than it's transparency. Thus far LLMs are not immune to confusion or mistakes, and so it stands to reason, it will not be possible to build ever new complex software with this technology.
Because of that, it's trivial to see that the skills involved are still required, but with much less incentive to learn them. Not only is it far, far easier to take shortcuts with Claude than it is a Commodore 64, it also rewards shortcuts with faster results at the expense of true understanding. This means that the next generation using these tools won't be filtered out by determination and troubleshooting to the same degree as the last. The Commodore 64 produced a generation of programmers; Claude Code will produce a generation of administrative software users.
While I'm being critical, I do want to state that administrative software users are absolutely needed in society. It's just not the same thing as what you and I call programming, the main difference being the expectation of creating or at least the capacity to create something new. That is, not another clone of an existing project, or a new integration of an existing plugin architecture. I'm not saying we won't progress as a society, but it's my belief that LLMs won't "democratize" software - they will drown it.
A time ago, sewing and tailoring was a valuable skill. Cheap clothes made it unnecessary. Today sewing is a hobby and most people who sew do so at a lower quality than a machine. You can say the same about pottery and ceramics.
There was a time when there were hundreds of car companies. Folks who wanted to could build a car, or plane, from scratch. That's not possible anymore.
Today lots of people cook at home at a level far superior to (at least) fast food restaurants. But of course fast food still exists.
I have been lucky to spend my career at the birth of the industry. It is now moving into the next stage, the commoditization of the skill set. I've seen the industry change before though, this is just the next cycle of that.
Lots of people will make a lot of software for themselves. But they won't sell it. Lots of other people will buy software because programming (ai or not) won't interest them. Programming isn't the skill here. Everything else in the business is.
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- The Verge · 0 points · 4 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 2 days ago
- Can John Ternus find Apple’s next big thing?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- Can you forget how you feel about Meta?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 11 days ago
- Hacker News · 73 points · 9 days ago