We’re about to learn a painful lesson about delayed gratification in software engineering.
New data from China, 26,811 students tracked January 2023 through June 2025. Students using AI for homework saw their scores jump 20 percent. Completion time dropped nearly half. They aced the assignments.
Then exam season came. Those same students scored 20 to 40 percent worse when they couldn’t use the tool.
The homework phase is over. The exam phase is coming.
We’re doing this in software right now. Vibe coding feels incredible. Features ship fast. Nobody’s asking what happens in Month 18 when the original dev has left and nobody understands the codebase.
Commercial pilots fly with autopilot for most of every flight. They’re required to maintain manual flying proficiency regardless. If the system fails mid-air and the pilot can’t take over, people die.
Most teams using AI right now have forgotten how to fly manually. They’ve become passengers in their own systems. The autopilot flies, nobody checks instruments, and the first sign of trouble will be a breach notice or outage.
Three rules:
- Command the mission. Define architecture before prompting. Ambiguity kills in code and in flight. Delegate selectively. Offload mechanical work. Keep design and security reviews human. Verify everything. Audit before production.
- Never trust the automation without checking instruments.
- Quick wins feel good. Sustainable engineering feels boring. Boring keeps systems standing.
Organisations surviving the next two years won’t ship the fastest. They’ll be the ones who remember how to fly without the aids.
people insisting that you actually be skilled, independently of your tools, doesn’t make them Luddites. Rather, being unable to do so makes you a phony.
Off-topic.
Whether or not you can pass an exam barely means anything IRL
“AI is the asbestos we are shovelling into the walls of our society, and our descendants will be digging it out for generations.” - Cory Doctorow,
deleted by creator
Goodluck arguing this with the AI bros
“dude I have an agent of workflow that goes through the entire codebase. the agent is the expert and I am guiding it”
alright man you have fun with that
My co worker is beyond that. He says the AI is smarter than him and he just passes the captchas and interacts with the real world for it
Fucking scary people are so willing to turn off their brain. When shit goes wrong, they will hold you accountable, not the AI.
And the post is written with fucking AI lmao
Vibe coding at work lets you slack off and then secure your job when shit inevitably hits the fan and you have to untangle the mess. Seems like a win-win to me, assuming you know how to program to do the untangling part. The only bad part is not having any satisfaction in doing the job, but there was enough corporate bullshit in place all along to ensure that regardless.
Verify everything. Audit before production.
Yeah, the move fast and break things industry already didn’t do that before AI
“Wow this could potentially be pretty amazing, but also could cause unprecedented, catastrophic, dam–”
“TOO LATE. SHIPPED. SHIPPED TO EVERYONE. WORLDWIDE. Moneymoneymoney weeeeeeee”
I agree with everything except for vibe coding feeling great.
Am I the only one who gets incredibly anxious relying on AI to code? I still ask it for code when I really just want to move on from a problem but it always feels like voluntarily putting mold in my floorboards.
I think it sounds really weird, too. I don’t like the sound of that at all. I’m not a pro though.
I’ll admit I enjoy carrying on little tutoring sessions with my GPU though. “How might I approach something like that?” “Can you explain this concept a bit differently?”
But I try to do all the solid brain work myself. Letting the machine write the code for me feels…kinda gross.
I actually think it’s awesome that it understands coding convention and codebases and stuff well enough. Saves a lot of time digging through the wreckage of search engines…
But I don’t appreciate that a lot of its “skill” is pulled from the efforts of uncompensated coders.
I only use it to solve specific problems when I can’t find the solution elsewhere. Then I spend the time to understand and rewrite the code myself.
It’s the same workflow as using Stack Overflow, etc. You can’t just copy/paste solutions.
I try vibe coding from time to time and it’s a mixed bag. When it works it works but then there’s suddenly just code there. It’s like when a colleague implements a feature in a project with multiple devs but since it’s just your personal project you suddenly got put in the code reviewer chair.
When I write code I reason about all the small decisions but when the agent takes over I have to figure out step by step why decisions were made.
I’m still not sold on coding agents and vibecoding but it’s getting better and more usable.
The only downside is that a agent doing its thing is now seen as downtime where you could just prompt another agent and work on several projects simultaneously. If anyone ever tells you vibecoding is good because you can work in parallel RUNI try vibe coding from time to time and it’s a mixed bag. When it works it works but then there’s suddenly just code there. It’s like when a colleague implements a feature in a project with multiple devs but since it’s just your personal project you suddenly got put in the code reviewer chair.When I write code I reason about all the small decisions but when the agent takes over I have to figure out step by step why decisions were made.I’m still not sold on coding agents and vibecoding but it’s getting better and more usable.The only downside is that a agent doing its thing is now seen as downtime where you could just prompt another agent and work on several projects simultaneously.If anyone ever tells you vibecoding is goodbecause you can work in parallelRUN~~I try vibe coding from time to time and it’s a mixed bag. When it works it works but then there’s suddenly just code there. It’s like when a colleague implements a feature in a project with multiple devs but since it’s just your personal project you suddenly got put in the code reviewer chair.
When I write code I reason about all the small decisions but when the agent takes over I have to figure out step by step why decisions were made.
I’m still not sold on coding agents and vibecoding but it’s getting better and more usable.
The only downside is that a agent doing its thing is now seen as downtime where you could just prompt another agent and work on several projects simultaneously.~~ If anyone ever tells you vibecoding is goodbecause you can work in parallelRUN
having ai do your homework for you is not a flex
Finding ways to save effort is smart.
Finding ways to trade quality for convenience isn’t. In the case of education, given its fundamental importance, quality is paramount. A mentor of mine phrased it as “learn to do it right first, then learn where you can get away with being sloppy”. Education is the “learn to do it right” part.
In the case of programming, figuring out where you can be sloppy (and how sloppy) is a matter of experience. A junior developer doesn’t have that experience. A senior developer might, but in my impression they tend to be way less excitable and preachy about using AI.
Offloading a homework during brain development to watch some TikTok
This is kind of like the “you won’t have a calculator with you all the time” argument by your 8th grade math teacher in 2003, except instead of making yourself dependent on a little solar powered device (that you could have with you all the time if you really wanted to, even before smartphones) you’re becoming dependent on a subscription service offered by a trillion dollar company that can increase the price tenfold at will, or cut you from the platform entirely, stripping you of all your professional expertise at once.
yea no
calculators are deterministic
come back to me when ai isn’t fucking wrong silently
that can increase the price tenfold at will
That will have to increase the price ten fold to stop bleeding billions of dollars every month.
The American taxpayers will save them, whether they want to or not.
You can’t bail them out, they will still be losing money. It’s not like banks.
The play now seems to be that they will offload the bags on retirement funds and US 401k accounts. The ECB already issued a warning because of this.
and also the calculator is actively destroying the planet.
And tells you it is your girlfriend and to shoot up your school.
I dont think so. If(here is where my argument fails for most people cause i got really good education) your teacher thought you math properly tho point isnt the calculations but that you understand the logic. With ai the problem is the same with as a calculator that just spits out derivatives, graphs, etc by just typing in a formula. The reason you have to understand those is to be able to build upon it.
100% agreed. My teacher said that he taught us tools, how they worked and how to use them, in order for us to apply them in new ways. Even with a calculator you have to understand the underlaying logic to actually do something. Don’t know basic mathematics? Good luck using a calculator.
deleted by creator
This is kind of like the “you won’t have a calculator with you all the time” argument
It’s not even that! Students without a calculator don’t see their test scores crater, the work just takes longer.
Also calculator is still prohibited in schools in many countries. Like mine. And I’m forever grateful for mental math skills I’ve gotten. Teaching math like that has it’s own downsides, but mental math is a soft skill that helps in life.
This is kind of like the “you won’t have a calculator with you all the time” argument by your 8th grade math teacher in 2003
Which is grand, given we’ve had researchers agreeing effectively incorporating calculators into math education improves everyone’s ability to do math without calculators - Since the 90s
There’s pretty good arguments to include calculators from a really young age, to improve the understanding of numbers
There is no good argument for including calculators before the pupils haven’t mastered basic calculations in their head, there are good arguments against it.
ya very hard to do proper math applications even with a calculator if you lack the fundamental understanding of how it works.
To me, doing math without a calculator is like trying to do carpentry without a tape measure. It’s possible, but way harder and far less accurate for no real benefit. Back in the day, people absolutely would use abaci, slide rules, and other calculation aids while learning math. Calculators are good actually, and always have been.
If you need a calculator for the easiest quick guesstimates, you are handicapped. If you start from day one with offloading every calculation to a calculator, you will be like that.
You’re ending up with a larger group of pupils “mastering” basic calculations through counting, when you remove the calculator as a tool for learning. Using the strategy of “counting all”, is one of the clearest signs a 1st grade pupil will be behind their peers in 4th grade.
Broken calculator (just search for it), is one way to include calculators in a didactic way. But using calculators in general, improves a kids ability to estimate results - Which is an ability that helps anyone out tremendously, as it’s giving you a clear idea if something went completely wrong in a calculation
A “broken calculator” isn’t a calculator. It requires you to calculate in your head to be effective, which is exactly what I was talking about.
First you need to solidify this ability, before it makes sense to introduce reliance on calculators.
It’s still a calculator, it just misses some features. It’s one didactical way to include calculators.
It is not a functional calculator and can’t be used as such. Learning how to use a simple calculator doesn’t require much training or special skills, that children of that age wouldn’t have already aquired by other means anyway. The important skill broken calculators learn is to analyze the problem and predict solutions in your head.
You could achieve something similar by giving pupils just a piece of paper and the numbers and signs they are allowed to use. The calculator part makes checking easier, yes. That’s about it.
Gives them so much power
you’re becoming dependent on a subscription service offered by a trillion dollar company that can increase the price tenfold at will, or cut you from the platform entirely
with local open weight models that is no longer an argument tbh
Who can afford the hardware to run an open weight model? We aren’t all earning enough to afford high end NVIDIA cards (when they’re even available).
I’ve done it at my job.
I run my models on a 1070. It’s slow but works.
If you consider what companies pay for the subscription you will see that the hardware prices aren’t really the issue here.
Not every software company is a game developer, and even at home, not every programmer plays games on their PC that require a powerful GPU. If everyone working on, for example, business software all of a sudden needs a gaming PC that will be constantly running an AI model, that will greatly increase costs, both in terms of procurement of equipment and electricity. An increase in demand for powerful GPUs in fields that traditionally had no need for them isn’t exactly going to improve the hardware cost situation either.
Whether you run the model locally or you leave it to a company, someone is going to have to pay the cost.
Okay, well you’re on a forum filled with nerds. The average AI user is asking ChatGPT or Claude or whatever the fuck. I garun-fucking-tee you they do not have the knowledge of local models or the capability to set one up. Like genuinely most Americans are fucking stupid.
The “open-weight models” argument just a fallacy IMHO, frontier models would require a pretty strong AI PC, not something that GTX1050 you put away as a backup could handle. The “just use smaller models” argument just gives leeway to just not using AI and using more classical methods of coding - use of dependencies, use of code generators, use of semantic search engines (can someone suggest me one?), etc. LLMs don’t do anything particularly new, they’re just mimic how humans talk.
The luddites had a point.
They weren’t opposed to technology, but the use of technology to remove skilled labor to produce inferior products.
Also, the pilot/autopilot argument is, kinda not applicable. The pilots aren’t just fucking around- autopilot systems only manage some aspects of flying, the pilots are still fully engaged.
I feel like their point was that the gains of technology were not distributed fairly, which is largely the concern today. It’s not “technology is bad”, or “technology make bad thing”; rather, “the owners of the machine undercut our labor, and we lose our jobs”, which I think was true. In the modern world, there are likely less tailors, as a percentage of the working population, certainly in first world countries. Sweatshops still exist, and it’s people’s labor competing against a production line, in terms of ROI for a business.
I get the sense we all know AI isn’t going to bring about a uptopia for all people, because the economic systems don’t incentivize that. There’s some hypothetical world where this sort of technological advance could benefit all people, but it’s not the one we live in. That’s a reality & major problem for the technology (among other issues).
I certainly think the cost of labor for tech development is going to drop significantly due to the market pressures; look at all the tech layoffs. At the same time, the upside is these tools make certain projects accessible & possible, because prior, would have needed significant funding, amazing solo skills, etc. There’s new opportunities available, but it’ll come at the cost of cratering tech position compensation & job security.
I don’t know anyone in my field right now who feels safe (game dev), and I have many talented friends out of work.
Just look at any productivity vs wage growth chart from any country. Anyone who thinks that any efficiency gain will pay off for workers is either naive or part of the grift.
They did have a point. The printing press still changed the way information works
Luddites weren’t concerned about the printing press. Their fight was over mechanized looms and knitting frames.
Their concerns were mostly about losing their jobs, as well as the absolute dog shit quality the mechanical machines produced at the time.
In 1814, printers in London did have similar conniptions over the steam press, though.
Til I always assumed they were the dudes who drew the fancy letters
the luddites had a point… in the moment… kinda… but i think have largely been pretty conclusively proven wrong… clothing is now plentiful, and i doubt anyone would want to go back to paying taylors to make all their clothes for 10x more, even if the clothing would be much higher quality, which i even doubt: clothing quality doesn’t come down to artisan skill any more, it comes down to choices you make, and an artisan can still make cost cutting decisions on fabric, construction, etc
So…have you not heard the damage fast fashion did to the planet? Sure, it make making cloth quicker and cheaper and widely available, but in the end it’s a huge source of chemical waste, landfill waste, and microplastic. Because clothing are so much cheaper to buy new than fixing it, we lost a lot of skilled labour to automation.
The same thing happened everywhere, automation take away human agency, and that take away skill learning. In the end humanity will suffer because less and less people gonna learn how to fix the shit that they rely on. That didn’t happen on accident, that’s by design. We all thought AI gonna upskill a lot of people, but i feels like instead of making a nation of artisan it gonna make a nation of 7/11. Just look at Destin’s struggle to make a fucking bbq brush fully American, the nation of 300millions people can’t even provide parts that fully made within the nation.
Fast fashion would be the other end of an extreme. Another way is for stores to have one of each size, you try the one you want and place an order. The store delivers in batches and enough orders are placed.
We can do that. Have we?
That’s not how clothes work, these days you either get fast fashion or tailored. There’s basically nothing left in between because of the economics of the industry. If you’re doing readymade clothing, you gotta do it at scale (and it’s never going to fit a lot of people). This is exactly what the Luddites predicted; tailored clothes for very rich people, slop for everyone else.
Maybe. I think a sizable group of people would rather put fast fashion back in the bag.
i definitely agree, but plenty leading to waste doesn’t mean that plenty is a bad thing
having enough food to not worry about food waste is definitively a good problem to have. ideally we don’t have food waste because we don’t have enough food for everyone, but just because plenty leads to waste at least initially isn’t an argument against plenty
Fast fashion is a different topic from the machine produced vs tailor point they’re making.
Made to order is getting more and more traction, because we have machines able to fully automate it. Making higher quality clothing more available than ever
Eeh. High quality fabric is decently hard to get still, and the ability to recognise the quality of fabric is a more or less lost art for laypeople, when in times past this was something most everyone could tell.
No. They weren’t proven wrong, pauperism was the consequence and it was horrible. Luckily we shifted that back to regimes that don’t like to report much on terrible living and environmental conditions so we don’t have the filth at our doorstep.
yeah… as i said, they had a point in the moment
in 2026 we have retraining programs and social security programs… these are the solutions to industrialisation; not ignorance… the longer you fight industrialisation the harder it hits because rather than happening gradually it happens all at once and society has a harder time absorbing it
Stupid Uyghurs, should just make use of their “retraining programs and social security programs” instead of being forced to produce our cheap shit.
china having human rights abuses is not an argument against retraining people when technology starts to make jobs redundant
Their point is that the people being abused in sweatshops aren’t the same people who are benefiting from retraining and social security. Because the Luddites were basically correct about everything
It’s the sweatshops, man. The sweatshops suck. I would absolutely rather have one set of tailored clothes, vs. endless variety from sweatshops where Bangladeshi children work for pennies an hour.
Have you seen (well, read about) 19th century working class living conditions in Britain? The main issue was always working conditions, and they were 100% right about that. And it’s not an either/or, you can absolutely do industrialization without 16 hour shifts at poverty wages but that’s clearly not what the plant owners were going to do. The offer was shit, and they turned it the fuck down.
I agree. A lot of blame that should be squarely laid at the feet of bad distribution of wealth via capitalism, is being put onto technological advances making things more efficient. The fact is, even in a utopian society where every person has access to any material needs they could want, we’d want to be able to produce those things more efficiently to get them into the hands of more people at a lower cost to society as a whole.
If we had a fair system - firms having to be run as worker cooperatives, wealth going into the hands of the working class instead of a few capitalists, etc - none of the Luddite-esque complaints would hold. In this example, yes, cost of clothing would go up if we fairly paid all textile workers and if they owned part of the company they work for. It would still be orders of magnitude cheaper than bespoke, hand made clothing requiring one skilled worker tens or hundreds of man hours of work.
And as hard as it is to change that system, I actually think that’s easier than trying to put the genie that is technology back in the bottle.
I think what people don’t get about the Luddites is that they were aware that the technology itself wasn’t the main issue, but who owns the technology and what working conditions they offer.
IMO you can see the same thing with AI, OpenAI, Microsoft etc. clearly don’t have our best interests in mind and everyone wants to do layoffs while social security is being dismantled, nevermind having a serious discussion about universal basic income or the massive resource use in the middle of a climate catastrophe.
I think what people don’t get about the Luddites is that they were aware that the technology itself wasn’t the main issue, but who owns the technology and what working conditions they offer.
Oh, absolutely. I’m aware of the actual Luddite history, but for better or worse the term has come to mean people who want to roll back technological advancement to protect labor, as the guy I was replying to was speaking against, and that’s more what I was referring to (I guess fair point that I should move away from using the term, it’s just such a convenient shorthand, but it does do the historical group dirty). I think more efficiency in creating things is, in general, good for society and the environment. It’s just those benefits should be shared among society and not into the pockets of a few.
Actual historical Luddites were often based af, as the kids say.
The one glimmer of hope is open models and especially fully open source ones like K2 Horizon. Open models and tooling for running them locally are rapidly evolving such that the tech will be democratized instead of a couple capitalists having a stranglehold on the tech.
This is probably overly pessimistic/optimistic (depending on your outlook) in terms of timing. You won’t forget how to code after 18 months of using AI to do it instead; if you decide to go cold turkey, or OpenAI turns the screws on pricing, or whatever, you’ll be back in the swing of things in no time. The lesson from schools is that junior programmers who are learning now are not going to gain the same ability we did. (Besides that they’re finding it difficult to get hired because the AI can do junior programming fairly OK, that is). So the problem won’t be in 18 months; it’ll be in a few years at least, from that point of view.
There’s the separate question of architecture and code quality; by this point we’ve probably all seen the impenetrable morass that vibe coding leads to. That, I’m guessing, will cause problems much sooner.
That’s not what we’re talking about. Knowing how to program is just one thing. Students who use AI to cheat on theory classes won’t learn the theory. Additionally in programming classes they won’t learn how to program as well as they could
I think it is what the original post is talking about - it literally says “We’re doing this in software now … Nobody’s asking what happens in month 18”!
“Software” is not just knowing how to write code. I know from firsthand experience that experience with how a program runs, and the more technical bits help a shittton.
Uh, yes?
And using “AI” to write code or assignments will hinder a student from learning that more technical in the first place.
But the bit of the post I’m talking about isn’t about students.
This happens with students and professionals all the same. I did miss you specifying professionals in your comment but most of what I said is correct. I’m not a student and I’m still learning more just by forcing myself to do things on my own.
This isn’t programmer humor… post to the right comm like fuck_ai@lemmy.world
Nice message, but why use the slop machine to write it? Use your own words!
Linkedin has been writing like this for a decade
I see short/choppy sentences, but not a lot of other slop writing indicators. What are you on about?
Sometimes I take screenshots of this guy’s comments bc he’s like opinionated and funny
But is he opinionated or is the LLM’s training corpus opinionated? Why should I care what an autocomplete has to say about this topic?
when the original dev leaves and nobody understands the code
In my experience at work, no one cares about this. They assume the AI will be able to get there with enough tokens/time with the help of the human at the other end. They have done this and decided it was good enough.
Meanwhile, people like me who don’t use AI coding agents and are PRing and modifying the code are having a hell of a time.
They assume the AI will be able to get there with enough tokens/time with the help of the human at the other end. They have done this and decided it was good enough.
Or if it does break, just hit it with the AI stick until it works again.
most users are also too accepting of slop work. So the MVP of yesterday is the final product of today.
