Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
55% Positive
Analyzed from 9054 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#don#more#psychosis#code#going#software#things#companies#fix#point
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 9054 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (267 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Purely AI written systems will scale to a point of complexity that no human can ever understand and the defect close rate will taper down and the token burn per defect rate scale up and eventually AI changes will cause on average more defects than they close and the whole system will be unstable. It will become a special kind of process to clean room out such a mess and rebuild it fresh (probably still with AI) after distilling out core design principles to avoid catastrophic breakdown.
Somewhere in the future, the new software engineering will be primarily about principles to avoid this in the first, place but it will take us 20 years to learn them, just like original software eng took a lot longer than expected to reach a stable set of design principles (and people still argue about them!).
Wow, it’s true, AI really is set to match human performance on large, complex software systems! ;)
it will kill all the people in that hospital too
(Screams in "deployed in 2026 a new product that only works in internet explorer" in healthcare).
Definitely cleaning up other people's AI mess for them for free is not a good use of time.
“ These are highly complicated pieces of equipment… almost as complicated as living organisms.
In some cases, they’ve been designed by other computers.
We don’t know exactly how they work.”
Now how did that work out ;-)
I think the problem will get worst. I dislike the marketing around AI, but I do think it is a useful tool to help those who have experience move faster. If you are not an expert, AI seems to create a complex solution to whatever it is you were trying to do.
Are you sure about this? Yes, there is a stable set, but they are used in all of the wrong places, particularly in places where they don't belong because juniors and now AIs can recite them and want to use them everywhere. That's not even discussing whether the stable set itself is correct or not - it's dubious at this point.
You have not seen the spreadsheets that accounts run the firm on.
Bloody kids!
Here’s a slightly different future - these AI rescue consultants are bots too, just trained for this purpose.
Plausible?
I have already experienced claude 4.7 handle pretty complex refactors without issues. Scale and correctness aren’t even 1% of the issue it was last year. You just have to get the high level design right, or explicitly ask it critique your design before building it.
Commits, design reviews, whitepapers, code reviews, test suites. And pretty concerning---ai chat logs and even keystrokes from employees nowadays.
The way we train specialized bots now is incredibly inefficient, that part is rapidly improving.
Do you think people are not giving their agents specs and asking for input?
That's serious levels of circular thinking right there.
We train humans to do things untrained humans can not do.
- AI Hype
- AI Psychosis
- AI keeps getting better and better until it can work around big AI slop code bases
The belief in this is a form of AI psychosis, I think.
Maybe in the future but certainly no evidence of this anytime soon
I exaggerate only a little.
I thought the same when I saw development outsourced to Indians that struggled to write a for loop.
I was wrong.
It turns out that customers will keep doubling down on mistakes until they’re out of funds, and then they’ll hire the cheapest consultants they can find to fix the mess with whatever spare change they can find under the couch cushions.
Source: being called in with a one week time budget to fix a mess built up over years and millions of dollars.
(None of above is theoretical)
It's really nowhere near as complicated as making distributed systems reliable. It's really quite simple: read a fucking book.
Well, actually read a lot of books. And write a lot of software. And read a lot of software. And do your goddamn job, engineer. Be honest about what you know, what you know you don't know, and what you urgently need to find out next.
There is no magic. Hard work is hard. If you don't like it get the fuck out of this profession and find a different one to ruin.
We all need to get a hell of a lot more hostile and unwelcoming towards these lazy assholes.
Scrape off all the soil, put it in casks, and bury it in a concrete bunker for 10000 years. Then relocate everyone and attempt to rebuild.
We didn't create the dna we rely on to produce food and lumber, we just set up the conditions and hope the process produces something we want instead of deleting all the bannannas.
Farming is a fine an honorable and valuable function for society, but I have no interest in being a farmer. I build things, I don't plant seeds and pray to the gods and hope they grow into something I want.
I don't think using AI to write code is AI psychosis or bad at all, but if you just prompt the AI and believe what it tell you then you have AI psychosis. You see this a lot with financial people and VC on twitter. They literally post screenshots of ChatGPT as their thinking and reasoning about the topic instead of just doing a little bit of thinking themselves.
These things are dog shit when it comes to ideas, thinking, or providing advice because they are pattern matchers they are just going to give you the pattern they see. Most people see this if you just try to talk to it about an idea. They often just spit out the most generic dog shit.
This however it pretty useful for certain tasks were pattern matching is actually beneficial like writing code, but again you just can't let it do the thinking and decision making.
Here's some other topics I've written on it:
- https://mitchellh.com/writing/my-ai-adoption-journey
- https://mitchellh.com/writing/building-block-economy
- https://mitchellh.com/writing/simdutf-no-libcxx (complex change thanks to AI, shows how I approach it rationally)
I wish I had written that.
>Amazon workers under pressure to up their AI usage are making up tasks
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48148337
compare 100 pollocks vs 2-3
Claiming that the people who disagree with you must be experiencing a form of psychosis, experiencing actual hallucinations and unable to tell what is real, is a weak ad hominem that comes off no better than calling them retarded or schizophrenic.
If you genuinely think one of your friends is going through a psychotic episode, you should be trying to get to them professional help. But don’t assume you can diagnose a human psyche just because you can diagnose a software bug.
The key factor is losing touch with reality, which results in individual or collective harm.
There is also such a thing as mass psychosis, and those are unfortunately a more difficult situation because the government and corporations are generally the ones driving them, and they are culturally normalized.
They almost always generate logically correct text, but sometimes that text has a set of incorrect implicit assumptions and decisions that may not be valid for the use case.
Generating a correct correct solution requires proper definition of the problem, which is arguably more challenging than creating the solution.
Does it make it better than us? No because ultimately the thing itself doesn’t ‘know’ right from wrong.
The standard of most employment is already to produce mediocre, plausible outputs as cheaply and rapidly as possible. It's a match made in heaven!
It's an incredible tool but it's also very derpy sometimes, full of biases, blind spots etc.
Or random consultants.
Is "AI said it was a good idea" and worse than "we were following industry trends"?
Based on the stuff I've seen, yes it seems a lot worse.
This is the right definition. LLM outputs have undefined truth value. They’re mechanized Frankfurtian Bullshiters. Which can be valuable! If you have the tools or taste to filter the things that happen to be true from the rest of the dross.
However! We need a nicer word for it. Suggesting someone has “AI psychosis” feels a bit too impolitic.
Maybe we reclaim “toked out” from our misspent youths?
e.g. “This piece feels a little toked out. Let’s verify a few of Claude’s claims”
[1] here I don't mean to imply agency, just vigor.
I can't imagine how bad it would be if your employer started doing this from the leadership. You'd be pressured to get on board or fear getting fired. Nobody would be trying to moderate your thinking except your coworkers who disagree with it, but those people are going to leave or be fired. If you want to keep your job, you have to play along.
this leads to naive AI adoption, which is the worst of both worlds (no real speedup, out sourcing thinking, ai slop PRs, skill rot).
> your coworkers who disagree with it, but those people are going to leave or be fired.
Personally I expect that I will be this person soon, probably fired. I'm not sure what I will do for a career after, but I sure do hate AI companies now for doing this to my career
I'm seeing it with lawyers, too. Like, about law. (Just not in their subject matter.) To the point that I had a lawyer using Perplexity to disagree with actual legal advice I got from a subject-matter expert.
Hard agree about ideas, thinking, advice. AI's sycophancy is a huge subtle problem. I've tried my best to create a system prompt to guard against this w/ Opus 4.7. It doesn't adhere to it 100% of the time and the longer the conversation goes, the worse the sycophancy gets (because the system instructions become weaker and weaker). I have to actively look for and guard against sycophancy whenever I chat w/ Opus 4.7.
---
Treat my claims as hypotheses, not decisions. Before agreeing with a proposed change, state the strongest case against it. Ask what evidence a change is based on before evaluating it. Distinguish tactical observations from strategic commitments — don't silently promote one to the other. If you paraphrase my proposal, name what you changed. Mark confidence explicitly: guessing / fairly sure / well-established. Give reasoning and evidence for claims, not just conclusions. Flag what would change your mind. Rank concerns by cost-of-being-wrong; lead with the highest-stakes ones. Say hard things plainly, then soften if needed — not the other way around. For drafting, brainstorming, or casual questions, ease off and match the task.
---
Beware though that it can be an annoying little shit w/ this prompt. Prepare yourself emotionally, because you are explicitly making the tradeoff that it will be annoyingly pedantic, and in return it will lessen (not eliminate) its sycophancy. These system instructions are not fool-proof, but they help (at the start of the conversation, at least).
While you have to think about things objectively no matter what, when I start researching topics like physics, using AI as suggested in that article has proven very useful.
To me AI psychosis is the handful of friends I’ve had who have done things like have a full on mourning session when a model updates because they lost a friend/lover, the one guy who won’t speak to his family directly but has them talk to ChatGPT first and then has ChatGPT generate his response, or the two who are confident that they have discovered that physics and mathematics are incorrect and have discovered the truth of reality through their conversations with the models.
But language is a shared technology so maybe the term is being used for less egregious behavior than I was using it for.
My understanding is that regular psychosis involves someone taking bits and pieces of facts or real world events and chaining them into a logical order or interpolating meanings or explanations which feel real and obvious to the patient but are not sufficiently backed by evidence and thus not in line with our widely accepted understanding of reality.
AI psychosis is then this same phenomenon occurring at a more widespread scale due to the next-word-prediction nature of LLMs facilitating this by lowering the activation energy for this to happen. LLMs are excellent at taking any idea, question, theory and spinning a linear and plausibly coherent line of conversation from it.
I mean, isn't that the natural and expected response? An AI company sold them a relationship with a chatbot and at least some their social/romantic needs were being met by that product. When what they were paying for was taken from them and changed without warning into something that no longer filled that void in their life why wouldn't they morn that loss?
The fact that they were hurt by that sudden loss is totally healthy. It's just part of moving on. The real problem was getting into an unhealthy relationship with a fictitious partner under the control of an abusive company willing to exploit their loneliness in exchange for money.
Hopefully they now know better, but people (especially desperate ones) make poor choices all the time to get what's missing in their lives or to distract themselves from it.
Ah, I forgot about the ai relationship companies. No this guy was using the browser based ChatGPT for coding and ended up in love with the model. No relationship was sold at all.
It's so interesting how easy it is to steer the LLM's based on context to arriving at whatever conclusion you engineer out of it. They really are like improv actors, and the first rule of improv is "yes, and".
So part of the psychosis is when these people unknowingly steer their LLM into their own conclusions and biases, and then they get magnified and solidified. It's gonna end in disaster.
Even before LLMs generating entire programs, complex frameworks allowed developers to write the initial versions of programs very quickly, but at the cost of being hard to understand and thus hard to debug or modify.
Some of us are betting that the AIs will always be smart enough to debug, maintain and modify the programs written by AI, no matter how convoluted or complex. I’m not so sure.
Right know, prompters are setting up whole company infrastructure. I personally know one. He migrated the companies database to a newer Postgres version. He was successful in the end, but I was gnawing my teeth when he described every step of the process.
It sounded like "And then, I poured gasoline on the servers while smoking a cigarette. But don't worry, I found a fire extinguisher in the basement. The gauge says it's empty, but I can still hear some liquid when I shake it..."
If he leaves the company, they will need an even more confident prompter to maintain their DB infrastructure.
the top reply is from someone doing exactly that, arguing "but the agents are so fast!"
Maybe they're assuming that doubling the code-base/features is more beneficial versus the damage from doubling the number of bugs... Well, at least for this quarter's news to investors...
The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad".
I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually?
This AI thing is not progressing well. I don't like this.
Let's say I'm polar opposite of them, and we're on the same page with you.
The whole "you'll be forced to do it" comes from the alternative being that you lose. You no longer get to be a player in the "game". In the same way that coopers and cobblers are no longer a significant thing, but we still have barrels and we still have shoes. Software engineers who refuse to employ any LLMs won't be market competitive. If you adopt it, you at least get to remain playing the game until the game changes/corrects. That's the part that's "not so bad".
Choosing your own survival isn't ethically bankrupt.
Oof. Potential "bad" outcomes of "game theory" should be calibrated to include all the bloody wars and genocides throughout recorded history.
Why did the Foi-ites kill every man, woman and child of the conquered Bar-ite city? Because if they didn't, then they'd be at a disadvantage if the Bar-ites didn't reciprocate in the cities they conquered...
The problem was not him, but the fact that the number of people who thinks like him. They may word it in a more benign form, but the idea is the same.
So obsessed with being the first mover and winning the battle, never thinking whether they should, or what would happen with that scenario.
Missing the whole forest and beyond for a single branch of a single tree.
You'll be forced to do it, or lose. The unstated assumptions are that, first, it will work, and second, that you can't afford to lose. But let's just assume those for the sake of argument.
> It can't be that bad
That does not follow at all. It can in fact be that bad. That was what made the game theory of MAD different from the game theory of most other things.
Thanks. :)
i don't think it's 'our side' that has the psychosis.
Show HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48151287
plot twist: it's Starbuck
I think Mitchell's point is well taken -- it's possible for these tools to introduce rotten foundations that will only be found out later when the whole structure collapsed. I don't want to be in the position of being on the hook when that happens and not having the deep understanding of the code base that I used to.
But humans have introduced subtle yet catastrophic bugs into code forever too... A lot of this feels like an open empirical question. Will we see many systems collapse in horrifying ways that they uniquely didn't before? Maybe some, but will we also not learn that we need to shift more to specification and validation? Idk, it just seems to me like this style of building systems is inevitable even as there may be some bumps along the way.
I feel like many in the anti camp have their own kind of reactionary psychosis. I want nothing to do with AI but I also can't deny my experience of using these tools. I wish there were more venues for this kind of realist but negative discussion of AI. Mitchell is a great dev for this reason.
And we do not get even get into potential adversarial tactics. If you have no morals what is better than using agents to flood your competitor with fake bug reports.
I guess what I relate to the most is how dismissive people get about real software engineering work.
I may have skill issues, but I am yet to reach the level of autonomous engineering people tend to expect out of AI these days.
I use AI coding tools every day, but AI tools have no concept of the future.
The selfish thinking that an engineer has when they think "If this breaks in prod, I won't be able to fix it. And they'll page me at 3AM" we've relied on to build stable systems.
The general laziness of looking for a perfect library on CPAN so that I don't have to do this work (often taking longer to not find a library than writing it by hand).
Have written thousands of lines of code with AI tool which ended up in prod and mostly it feels natural, because since 2017 I've been telling people to write code instead of typing it all on my own & setting up pitfalls to catch bad code in testing.
But one thing it doesn't do is "write less code"[1].
[1] - https://xcancel.com/t3rmin4t0r/status/2019277780517781522/
Maybe it's just my prompt or something but my coding agent (Opus 4.7 based) says things like "this is the kind of thing that will blow up at 2am six months from now" all the time.
and we all live in a green utopia of flying cars and peace upon the world.
I know which outcome I'd put my money on.
...and it also needs more so-called AI companies present in the wreckage in this crash.
AI psychosis is undeniably real.
At the end of the day robots can do the vast vast majority of jobs better and faster. If not now, very soon.
I only worry our economic systems won’t keep up
But I only see mass layoffs and those who are working - are working longer and harder then before.
It is definitely factual that there is a complete paradigm shift in the prioritization of quality in software. It's beyond just AI side effects, and now its own stand alone thing.
There have always been many industries, companies, and products who are low on quality scale but so cheap that it makes good business sense, both for the producer and the consumer.
Definitely many companies are explicitly chosing this business strategy. Definitely also many companies that don't actually realize they are implicitly doing this.
Wether the market will accept the new software quality paradigm or not remains an open question.
I really do worry - I especially worry about security. You thought supply chain security management was an impossible task with NPM? Let me introduce to AI - you can look forward to the days of AI poisoning where AIs will infiltrate, exfiltrate, or just destroy and there's no way of stopping it because you cannot examine the internals of the system.
AI has turbo charged people's lax attitude to security.
God help us.
Sure there are industry changing things going on. What if you're working on an app thats a decade old and has had different teams of people, styles, frameworks (thanks to the JS-framework-a-week Resume Driven Development)? Some markdown docs and a loop of agents isn't going to help when humans have trouble understanding what the app does.
A lot of companies have been under AI psychosis for years and will be forever.
at least at my BigCo, AI is being used for everything - writing slop, writing tests, code reviews, etc.
it would make sense to use AI for writing code, but human code review. or, human code, but AI test cases... or whatever combination of cross-checking, trust-but-verify, human in the loop, etc. people prefer.
i think once it gets used for everything, people have lost the plot, it's the inmates running the asylum.
"What's true about all bugs in production? (pause for dramatic effect) They all passed the tests!" (well, he said typechecker but I think the point stands)
Let them.
“It feels like entire companies are deluded into thinking they don’t need me, but they still need me. Help!”
The broad sentiment across statements of this “AI psychosis” type is clear, but I think the baseline reality is simpler. How can you be so certain it’s psychosis if you don’t know what will unfold? Might reaching for the premature certainty of making others wrong, satisfying that it might be to the ego, be simply a way to compensate the challenges of a changing work environment, and a substitute for actually considering the practical ways you could adapt to that? Might it not be more helpful and profitable to consider “how can I build windmills, ride this wave, and adapt to the changing market under this revolution” than soothing myself with the delusion that all these companies think they don’t need me now, but they’ll be sorry.
The developer role is changing, but it doesn’t have to be an existential crisis. Even though it may feel that way — but probably it’s gonna feel more that way the more you remain stuck in old patterns and over-certainty about how things are doesn’t help, (tho it may feel good). This is the time to be observant and curious and get ready to update your perspective.
You may hide from this broad take (that AI psychosis statements are cope) by retreating into specific nuance: “I didn’t mean it that way, you’re wrong. This is still valid.” But the vocabulary betrays motive. Resorting to clinical derogatory language like “AI psychosis” invokes a “superior expert judgment” frame immediately, and in zeitgeist context this is a big tell. It signifies a need to be right, anda deeply defensive pose rather than a clear assay of what’s real in a rapidly changing world. The anxiety driving the language speaks far louder than any technical pedantry used to justify it, and is the most important and IMO profitable thing to address.
Eventually the companies that can't cope with undisciplined engineering will succumb to unacceptable reliability and be outcompeted, just like in the "move fast and break things" era.
Sorry, I don't buy your argument
What's more, the only people they talk to about it are others at the same company. There is no external touchstone. There are power dynamics from hierarchy. No new ideas other than what is generated within the company. In other circumstances, this is a textbook environment for radicalization.
I would encourage all leadership to take a deep breath. You have time to think slow.
Many people on this forum are suffering under this same psychosis.
You should not release a product into the market unless you have a good enough product that can keep you and your client compliant, safe and secure - including not leaking their customer info all over the place.
Prompt injection risk, etc. are massive for agentic AI without deterministic guardrails that actually work in practice.
Stop testing in production if you're shipping in a regulated industry. Ridic!
If you're not technical, you can get someone who is after signs of p-m fit, demos, but BEFORE deployment. This is common sense and best practices but startup bros dgaf because they're just good at sales and marketing & short term greedy.
Comical.
You first use the full words and then introduce the acronym that you're going to use in the rest of the text: "Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) vs. Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR)".
With the latter, readers understand the term immediately, even if they don’t know the acronym. And they don't have to read these weird letters before getting the explanation.
But in reality, anyone who knows their field and are going after certain specific issue, they will find soon how AI is nothing but an assistant, sure it can help and automate some stuff, but that’s it, you need to keep it leashed and laser focused on that specific issue. I personally tried all high end ones, and I found a common theme, they are designed to find a solution or an answer no matter what, even if that solution is a workaround built on top of workarounds, it’s like welding all sort of connections between A and B resulting in a fractal structure rather than just finding a straight path, if you keep it going and flowing on its own, the results are convoluted and way over complicated, and not the good complexity, the bad kind.
In all seriousness...well, yeah. AI is a monkey's paw, and that's how monkey paws work. So many movies and books warned us!
i don't have enough fingers (and toes) to count how many times i've demonstrated that "100% coverage" is almost universally bullshit.
Actually no, cancel that. I realise now that I trust AIs more than the average developer, period. At this point they do produce better code than most people I've dealt with.
If you're not doing AI there's an incredibly limited pool of people who will give you $$$ ... and you're competing with EVERY OTHER NON-AI COMPANY for their attention.
I am very close to using it as a pair programmer, but with me actually coding. I am just so tired of fixing its mistakes.
Probably from the EU because they seem to be the sane ones of this generation.
Management is really pushing AI. It's obnoxious, and their idea on how it fits into my team's job specifically is completely, hilariously detached from reality. On the off chance someone says something reasonable, unless it fits the mold, it's immediately discarded. The mold being "spec driven development". We're not even a product team for crying out loud. I straight up started skipping these meetings for the sake of my sanity. It's mindwash, and it's genuinely dizzying. The other reason I stopped attending is because it ironically makes me more disinterested in AI, which I consider to be against my personal interests on the long run overall.
On the flipside, I love using Claude (in moderation). It keeps pulling off several very nice things, some of which Mitchell touched on in this post (the last one):
- I write scripts and automation from time to time; Claude fleshes them out way better with way more safety features, feature flags, and logging than I'd otherwise have capacity to spend time on
- Claude catches missed refactors and preexisting defects, and does a generally solid pass checking for defects as a whole
- Claude routinely helps with doing things I'd basically never be able to justify spending time on. Yesterday, I one-shotted an entire utility application with a GUI to boot, and it worked first try; I was beyond impressed.
- Claude helped me and a colleague do some partisan cross-team investigation in secret. We're migrating <thing> and we were evaluating <differences>. There was a lot of them. Management was in a limbo, unsure what to do, flip-flopping between bad options. In a desperate moment, I figured, hey, we kinda have a thing now for investigating an inhuman amount of stuff in detail - so I've put together a care package for my colleague with all our code, a bunch of context, a capture of all the input data for the past one week, and all the logs generated. Colleague put his team's side of the story next to it, and with the help of Claude, did some extremely nice cross-functional investigation. Over the course of a few weeks, he was able to confirm like a dozen showstopper bugs, many of which would have been absolutely fiendish if not impossible to fix (or even catch) if we went live without knowing about them. One even culminated in a whole-ass solution re-architecturing. We essentially tore down a silo wall with Claude's help in doing this.
So ultimately, it really is a mixed bag, with some really deep lowpoints and some really nice higlights. I also just generally find it weird that a technical tool [category] is being pushed down people's throats with a technical reasoning, but by management. One would think this goes bottom up, or is at least a lot more exploratory. The frenzy is real.
seems like it's working ideally to me!
And also, he might not be right. But the good news is, we’ll all get to find out together!
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2025.10.10....
But equally, like, do people need Terraform if they can just tell codex “put it live”, and does that hurt to see?
I don't think it's super clear what we'll find out.
We've all built the moat of our careers out of our expertise.
It is also very possible that expertise will be rendered significantly less valuable as the models improve.
Nobody ever cared what the code looked like. They only ever cared if it solved their problem and it was bug free. Maybe everything falls apart, or maybe AI agents ship code that's good enough.
Given the state of the industry were clearly going to find out one way or the other, hah!
I think some companies will find out that their senior engineers were providing more value and software stability than they gave them credit for!
Corporate feedback loops are very slow though, partly because management don't like to admit mistakes, and partly because of false success reporting up the chain. I'd not be surprised if it takes 5 years or more before there is any recognition of harm being done by AI, and quiet reversion to practices that worked better.
Hmm, I agree with the point OP is making, but I'm not so sure this is the best supporting argument. The bottleneck is finding the bugs and if he'd criticized people saying AI will be the panacea to that I'd be with him, but people saying agents are fast and good at fixing human found bugs is nothing I'd object to.
Agents are fixing bugs so quickly and at a scale humans can't do already.
The metric is how many defects are introduced per defect fixed. Being fast is bad if this ratio is above one.
The fact that we can fix things faster now doesn't mean that we should throw away caution and prevention. The specific point of his tweet is that we're seeing a lot of people starting to skip proper release engineering.
Agents are quick to fix bugs, yes, but it doesn't mean that users will tolerate software that gets completely broken after each new feature is introduced and takes a certain number of days to heal each time.
So the point is not that agents cannot find bugs (they certainly can), it's whether you can shirk reviewing for bugs if MTTR is fast enough. There are circumstances where YOLO is appropriate, but they aren't the production environment of a mature application.
What I wanted to say is that the particular people that think "its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" are not the best argument for it.
But I won't die on this hill, maybe I'm just reading the sentence differently then others.
But this is just holding the Slop Companies to the standard they declared themselves! Just recently, the CEO of OpenAI babbled some nonsense on twitter about how he hands over tasks to Codex who according to him, finishes them flawlessly while he is playing with his kid outside.
> but soon we will be.
Ah yes, in the 3-6 months, right? This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires!
It all just feels like horse drawn carriage operators trying to convince automobile drivers to stop driving.
The direct analogy to automobiles would be for each automobile to be a oneoff design filled with bad and bizarre decisions, excessively redundant parts, insane routing of wires, lines, ducts, etc., generally poor serviceability, and so on. IMO the big question going forward is whether the consistent availability of LLMs can render these kinds of post-delivery issues moot (they will reliably [catch and] fix problems in the software they wrote before any real damage is caused), or whether human reliance on LLMs and abdication of understanding will just make software worse because LLMs' ability to fix their own mistakes, and the consequences thereof, generally breaks down in the same contexts/complexities where they made those mistakes in the first place.
My own observations are that moderately complex software written in the mode of "vibe coding" or "agentic engineering" tends to regress to barely-functional dogshit as features are piled on, and that once this state is reached, the teams behind it are unable to, or perhaps simply uninterested in, unfuck[ing] it. I have stopped using software that has gone down this path, not because I have some philosophical objection to it, but because it has become _literally unusable_. But you will certainly not catch me claiming to know what the future holds.