Software Developers Say AI Is Rotting Their Brains (404media.co)
- Reference: 0183210163
- News link: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/26/05/13/1949225/software-developers-say-ai-is-rotting-their-brains
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/software-developers-say-ai-is-rotting-their-brains/
> On [1]Reddit , [2]Hacker News and other places where people in software development talk to each other, more and more people are becoming disillusioned with the promise of code generated by large language models. Developers talk not just about how the AI output is often flawed, but that using AI to get the job done is often a more time consuming, harder, and more frustrating experience because they have to go through the output and fix its mistakes. More concerning, developers who use AI at work report that they [3]feel like they are de-skilling themselves and losing their ability to do their jobs as well as they used to .
>
> "We're being told to use [AI] agents for broad changes across our codebase. There's no way to evaluate whether that much code is well-written or secure -- especially when hundreds of other programmers in the company are doing the same," a UX designer at a midsized tech company told me. 404 Media granted all the developers we talked to for this story anonymity because they signed non-disclosure agreements or because they fear retribution from their employers. "We're building a rat's nest of tech debt that will be impossible to untangle when these models become prohibitively expensive (any minute now...)."
"I had some issues where I forgot how to implement a Laravel API and it scared the shit out of me. I went to university for this, I've been a software engineer for many years now and it feels like I am back before I ever wrote a single line of code," the software developer at a small web design firm told 404 Media. "It's making me dumber for sure," the fintech software developer added.
"It's like when we got cellphones and stopped remembering phone numbers, but it's grown to me mentally outsourcing 'thinking' in general. I feel my critical thinking and ability to sit and reason about a problem or a design has degraded because the all-knowing-dalai-llama is just a question away from giving me his take. And supposedly I tell myself ill just use it for inspiration but it ends up being my only thought. It gives you the illusion of productivity and expertise but at the end of the day you are more divorced from the output you submit than before."
A software engineer at the FAANG said: "When I was using it for code generation, I found myself having a lot of trouble building and maintaining a mental model of the code I was working with. Another aspect is that I joined late last year and [the company's] codebase is massive. As a new hire, part of my job is to learn how to navigate the codebase and use the established conventions, but I think the AI push really hampered my ability to do that."
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskProgramming/comments/1shipos/are_you_enjoying_your_work_with_llms/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48090029
[3] https://www.404media.co/software-developers-say-ai-is-rotting-their-brains/
You're doing it wrong (Score:1)
If you don't understand the code architecture and feel that your job is to implement code snippets, that, frankly LLMs are better at than you, you're going to be out of a job (eventually).
The future of software engineers is to be able see the flow, the interaction, the data paths and the goals well enough to explain what you want in a prompt and to understand what comes out well enough to know that it meets that goal. Language, APIs, syntax, etc. are no longer of any importance.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, not missing the forest for the trees. Until people forget what trees look like, then it's safe to worry about what's in the forest.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to throw in with you on this.
I started using gemini and found it's far better than my best employee ever was.
My best employee was very very good, but I'd have to wait a day to see results of the meeting.
One thing he (best employee) did that AI can't do is make good judgement calls. No question there.
However, when the AI spits out a half day's work in 10 seconds, it allows me the analyst/designer/project manager to rapidly analyze the output, and do another iteration of design ideas, immediately, o
Use it or lose it (Score:3)
Knowledge in general is use it or lose it. I remember my grandpa showing me how to use a slide rule and a lookup tables in books. And waxing about how his coworkers were worried that calculators were going to rot brains. Tools even in math have shifted where knowledge is needed even farther in the past, like stats packages, Maple, or Wolfram Alpha.
What's scary here is that the need for knowledge isn't shifted, just outsourcing the practice.
Re: (Score:1)
I used a 48sx in collage and it has one hell of a learning code. You had to know how to use it which is not simple and you had to know how to translate albergaic entry to rpn.
We see this problem + AI is a tool, not a religion (Score:3)
I have to scrutinize pull requests much moreso than ever before. I have a handful of coworkers who like to let Claude do everything...which honestly isn't a concern if they test it and write the tests themselves and understand what it does. However, I have had to reject several PRs because they were having AI writing the tests AND the code. Obviously AIs are prone to write unit tests that justify their behavior, not the actual intended function of the code.
There's a temptation to let Claude do everything...but when I've tried it, I had to edit it heavily. Usually the code it produced was unprofessional or didn't even resemble working. However, it did help me out a few times with libraries I've never used before. I just am very careful about writing my own unit tests and verifying end to end. Additionally, I've been lazy and just pointed Claude at a stacktrace and ask it to tell me why it was failing (a project I'm unfamiliar with). It failed 100% of the time. In fairness, so did I...they were tricky bugs...I had to contact the author and have him explain what he intended to do. It's ability to understand code is really lacking....whereas that should be it's greatest strength.
I am an AI realist. I give it credit where it works and complain where it's overhyped. I have multiple AI evangelists on my team. For them, it's a religion...do everything in AI...AI is all powerful. To me, it's a tool in my toolbox.
The difference between us is that I see AI as it is today....their vision is AI as they imagine it...based on sci fi books and movies. In their vision, Claude is smart and knows what it's doing and will guide you to the promised land with a layover in nirvana and bliss. All hail AI!!!!
The disturbing part is they seem to have noticeably regressed and believe Claude over their own judgment.
Re: (Score:3)
> I have to scrutinize pull requests much moreso than ever before
> The disturbing part is they seem to have noticeably regressed
And think this is core to the discussion because output from evangelists is going up while hollowing out the skills needed for the next generation to do the review.
You're fired cause the manager says it works (Score:2)
People getting fired because the managers guarantee vibe coding works. Meanwhile I order coffee from an app that had worked fine for years and ended up waiting half an hour before needing to find an email proving I even paid at all, which the baffled store employees told me looked like an Uber Eats delivery that had been delivered. But hey the vibe recoded app gave my money to the company and that's the important thing!
It stops the development of new knowledge too (Score:3, Interesting)
I've used AI agents to assist with troubleshooting some IT issues. And while it did eventually get me there, there were two glaring problems I've found: * On issues where I was familiar with the system, it would make wacky suggestions or tie things together as being the same root cause even when it was an impossibility. You could waste a lot of time going down these rabbit holes if you didn't know what you were doing. * On issues where I was less familiar, I found that after spending hours troubleshooting the system, I arrived at the answer but had not gained any knowledge on the methodology of how the system worked or how the troubleshooting plan was determined. You never get to be a senior level contributor without this kind of knowledge. So it worked, but it would really depend on the goals of the organization as to whether this was a direction they really want to go.
Those Pull Requests (Score:2)
I received my first AI-generated pull request recently. It was... not great. A lot of extra code that was not necessary at all, some odd naming conventions, and the size of it all made the whole change set difficult to parse. This wasn't a typical "Well, this works and it's okay, it's just not the way I would do it." Some sections were legitimately terrible.
I have been using AI tools somewhat, but mostly to examine existing structures and answer questions. It's pretty good at that. But the code? I prefer to
Brain rot even farther back ... (Score:4, Insightful)
> "It's like when we got cellphones and stopped remembering phone numbers, ...
Or home phones with speed-dial.
You let some one/thing do tasks for you and you eventually forget how to do them yourself.