undefined | Better HN

0 pointsggititel2d ago0 comments

Perhaps for now. But you know, after working solid with AI for two years and adopting effective methods using detailed plans, and having a lot of success with it, here is the problem:

Coding faster leads to less understanding and higher long-term risk. Source-Code amnesia is real, and there’s a time requirement to really understand and appreciate what a system is actually doing.

I’ve been able to implement very large features using frontier models, but the code needs to always be revisited.

AI can do two things: find vulnerabilities, and prototype code. It cannot design software, and any appearance of such is an illusion at best.

We don’t need to produce faster to be successful, we need to create better, long lasting products.

0 comments

ekidd2d ago

> Coding faster leads to less understanding and higher long-term risk. Source-Code amnesia is real, and there’s a time requirement to really understand and appreciate what a system is actually doing.

This is why I have switched nearly all of my personal coding experiments over to Qwen3.6 27B. Opus make it easy to gloss over too much and to delegate too much. And so I don't build sufficient memory of the code to provide long-term oversight.

But Qwen3.6 27B sits on an really interesting balance point. It understands code well enough to get 80% of the way to a good design, and it can fully implement a well-specified feature. But if my understanding of the code starts to weaken, things start going wrong much more quickly than they do with Claude.

Opus will happily take complex code beyond the point of salvation, if you allow it. I'm currently cleaning up a successful prototype code base right now, one that was partially vibe-coded and now needs to be put into production. And Opus generated massive amounts of tech debt. So clearly people who lean into vibe coding will need to keep upgrading their models for many years to keep up with the mess created by earlier models.

trollbridge2d ago

Strong agree (although I'm on Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, with 6-bit quant.). If you're a programmer, it gets the job done. When I occasionally don't want to care about the code, I switch over to DeepSeek V4 Pro.

Opus is relegated to the planning / design phase.

maplethorpe2d ago

> It cannot design software, and any appearance of such is an illusion at best.

Have you tried Claude Opus 4.7?

ggititelOP2d ago

Yes I use Opus 4.7 regularly as my daily AI tool. It can do incredible things for sure, but more in the sense of pure intellect not much in “emotional” or “creative” intelligence.

For example you might have a great design/architecture session and then run out of context. The next agent tries to piece things together from fragments of conversation and such. But it often starts going off on tangents, searching overly broad to understand, misses cues and nuance, all-the-while burning tokens.

As other articles have put it: AI makes doing the easy things easier and the hard things harder. Because hard things require creativity.

To bring this back to the original post: companies need people, and they shouldn’t expect that they can fire half their workforce and replace it with AI. Quite the contrary. The faster companies move with AI the more technical debt they’ll end up with it’s a guarantee.

“If you want to travel fast, go alone. If you want to travel far, go together.”

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse