> In 2026, if you are still writing code “by hand” without AI assistance, then either you haven’t tried using AI, or you are just coding for fun — without any desire to be productive. However, if you have a goal in mind to build something, then you would be foolish to do it “by hand”.
What an insane assertion. While it is undeniable that AI has gotten good at writing code, there are absolutely times where it makes sense to reject it (for writing, at least), such as when a high degree of comprehension and correctness is required. People have been "productive" writing code by "hand" for over 50 years. This hasn't changed, though AI does in many cases incrementally improve productivity, it does not always and it does not mean not using it is inherently unproductive.
For instance, for many libraries such as the ones I use to access databases or do complex calculations, I would like it to, at the very least, not be immediately obvious the project was vibe coded. Would you have still been banned if it wasn't so obvious you had prompted your way through the whole library? If it is obvious you prompted blindly, how can the code be human quality?
> some guy off the street can type a prompt into AI, and produce better code than we could. It’s not fair.
AI rarely seems to write better code than humans. It certainly writes mostly functional code faster. But significant time is lost in review compared to human code in my professional experience.
> AI rarely seems to write better code than humans.
That's my experience as well.
AI does a decent job of reviewing and finding bugs, but it has no concept of what makes code good or bad - too much state, convoluted logic, no invariants, unnecessary methods, poorly defined abstractions, not relying on fail-fast etc.
It's similar to work from a junior developer with little experience maintaining code over a longer period of time.
Not insane at all. There are two types of developers: those who do it primarily for the outcomes, and those who do it primarily for the craft. These are fundamental orientations.
Do craft people like outcomes? Sure. Can outcome people appreciate craft? Sure. But fundamentally, you typically fall more in one camp than the other.
And this assertion comes from the outcome people. Is it insane? No. To assert it's insane is insane, because it shows a fundamental disconnect from the economics of software development.
Which is about right, because the craft people don't do something primarily for the economics.
I do care about craft, but I am not considering craft in my comment. My problem is that craft and correctness are often correlated, and I do care about correctness. I care that the software I ship to end users, and especially the libraries that other software is built upon, are relatively bug free. A good way to assure this is to spend a long time, as a human, reasoning over what the AI wrote.
At work, I've frequently used AI to rapidly build MVPs. Then I get back to work and spend a lot of time on my own, with the help of AI, and with the help of code review from my teammates, raising the quality and correctness bar. Much longer than it would've taken if I just wrote it myself out of the gate, though there is still a net AI productivity gain because writing is just so so much faster.
All this is to say is that I do not care* if AI or a human wrote a library in actuality, but if it is obvious from the code and readme that an AI (or an amateur human) wrote it, I will reject the library because it is clear it is not up to the spec I demand. But tovalds can use AI all he wants in linux as long as the correctness of the output remains the same.
* perhaps I care slightly because on a more personal level, I do think its a little sad, though in a professional capacity I do not care.
I've rarely met a "craft" person that authors TLA+ models to find correctness issues in their systems. And yet as an outcome person I frequently ask my AI minions to do this and similar exercises.
What I think you're actually describing is competency using AI as a tool to drive effective and correct outcomes. That takes practice and systems - same as it ever was.
If you buy in, I think you'll find you can create great, correct systems... only more than you could ever do alone. Without N*N comms overhead. Without having to convince your louder, less competent teammate to actually finish their work.
> What I think you're actually describing is competency using AI as a tool to drive effective and correct outcomes. That takes practice and systems - same as it ever was.
Right, but I suspect (the author did not link the library) that this was not what was happening. I suspect the Java mods looked at the library for a solid 30 seconds and it was immediately obvious there was heavy AI usage in a more negative way.
I feel I fall into two camps for different projects. I have a hobby project where I'm writing native UI components by hand without AI, and managing memory in an Arena allocator I wrote myself. I also have a hobby project where I honestly don't touch the code, I just think in terms of systems run per frame and the time complexity of different algorithms, making Claude do it. Most personal projects are somewhere in between. I don't think either approach is insane, immoral, or any other hyperbole.
> I don't think either approach is insane, immoral, or any other hyperbole.
Agree! To me it comes down to intention and attention.
Depending on my *intention*, I should devote more or less of my *attention* to one thing vs another.
Another way to think about it is essential vs incidental attention, which I borrow from essential vs incidental complexity [0].
Many things require attention, or it doesn't perform correctly. Essential attention. Many, many more things don't require my full attention, and they'll still perform adequately. They satisfice.
Farm out the tasks that require only incidental attention.
Thanks for the link. Software is all about managing complexity. I like the point about testing and external reasoning. LLMs can write a lot of tests in short order, many of which don't do much to help the program. It enjoys "pinning" behavior, which is basically just confirming a golden path and doing nothing to actually examine the behavior of a module under various conditions.
AI helps you build more software in the same way that a C compiler helps you build more assembler.
I spend far more tokens on specification and verification than I do on actual feature-code generation.
And with it a small team of 3 developed something in just a few weeks that would have normally taken us 12 months. And we are selling it for multiple-seven figures to customers who (by all rights) should have been able to token-gen their way to the same outcome, but haven't.
So there is clearly some value in the people, and clearly some value in the AI. But I think people are misplacing/misattributing which goes where, in some cases.
> I would never actually ship any code anymore without using AI to review it
I can very much understand how the author can come off as calling people insane for not using AI to generate the code itself, but the impression I got is that he's calling people insane for not using AI at all in the coding process, i.e. for refusing to use AI even for code review.
And let's be fair: if you're not willing to let a completely local model (so as to put aside privacy concerns and API cost concerns), in a sandbox with read-only permissions, conduct code review for you in 2026, then yeah, I think you're doing the equivalent of refusing to take antibiotics. You can decide to reject the review results, or re-word the proposed fixes, but to refuse AI assistance at all as a matter of principle during the review stage is no longer a mainstream defensible position.
If the author just used AI as one element of code review, would the author still have been banned? The answer is obviously unknowable, but I think it is unlikely.
Where do you draw the line with what's considered "AI"?
There's a very clear pattern regarding pushback against AI, and it's not as ideological or political as you're making it out to be.
Lots of devs absolutely hate linters just as much, or maybe even more, than LLMs. It's simply a matter of having precise control over the result that gels with the dev's thought process enough to approve a release.
Let's be honest here. If you've got at least an 8-hour day to wrap up a medium size change of less than 1k LOC, the debate over LLMs is more of a personality judgement than advocating for a productivity tool. It's still going to get reviewed anyway, and most bugs in the software most people write for a living aren't subtle mistakes.
Lots of devs absolutely hate linters just as much, or maybe even more, than LLMs.
I never had much use for lint, myself. Back when Dr. Dobb's Journal used to publish ads for a commercial linter that included "spot the bug" quizzes, I could always spot the bug.
The thing is, though, LLMs are good at spotting semantic issues, not just C++ footgun #69,105. That's the point where I stopped worrying and learned to love the bot, when it found more issues with my code than I found with its own. I think that was Opus 4.6.
> but to refuse AI assistance at all as a matter of principle during the review stage is no longer a mainstream defensible position.
Personally the position strikes me more like the people of yore who would write code entirely in vim/emacs or, god forbid, notepad++, while the rest of us were using IDEs. We can all sit on our high horses and croon about how much more productive they'd be if they just tried a little bit of AI – "come on bro, just a puff" – but they've got their workflow and it isn't broken.
I apologize for my skepticism, but I have literally heard this same claim made with every single generation of models that comes out.
For a while, I dutifully believed it, and would go try again, and it would be awful.
I'd then have another conversation like this, where someone would say something along the lines of, "sure, sure but this NEW model now fixes all that and is really awesome!"
I'll revisit it when I start seeing some real studies that show real productivity increases rather than stuff that just shifts the burden of broken slop onto PR reviewers while claiming awesome speed.
You may also consider that developers (like any person in any profession) exist on spectrum of competency, and you may just be better than most of them.
But models are climbing their way up the percentile charts.
90% of the software development in the work, by volume, can be done by people who are in the 50th percentile of skill.
So these model advances do meaningfully expand the amount of "useful" work that can be done without people. And simultaneously not be "good enough" for the specific kind of work you find yourself doing day to day.
Grab the last 5,000 lines of code you wrote, and that you thought was bug-free. Run it through Opus 5.5 or Fable 5.1 and post what it finds (and be honest about it, given that nothing is at stake but an Internet argument.)
>> AI rarely seems to write better code than humans.
This assertion is at the crux of a lot of these debates. Fundamentally it depends on what is meant by "better code", does it not?
Code that is bug free? Frontier models are inarguably better at that, because they can think of far more edge cases and test each one much faster than you can. You can argue that its code and surrounding tests are frequently overkill, but that's a dial you can tweak until you're happy.
Code that is performant? Frontier models are inarguably better at that too. They can create a benchmark harness and run it over and over to optimize the code they wrote while you're still poring over the docs on which method of iterating over a list is faster.
Code that is secure? Frontier models are also better at that, for the above two reasons: they can create complex security vulnerability plans and run swarms of agents to audit the code and attack the system that runs that code until it's like a god damn fortress.
Code that is easily understood by humans and fits coherently with the rest? I think humans are better at this still, because humans are definitionally the best at understanding what is easily understood by humans. I posit that this definition of "better code" is quickly going out of fashion though.
> Code that is bug free? Code that is performant? Code that is secure?
I have found that on the level of an individual function, this might very well be the case. On the level of an entire system, it very quickly falls apart and you get a lot of redundancies which cause security, bug and performance recessions, because nobody has really solved the issue of AI understanding whole systems at the time of inference.
I think it goes beyond individual functions. AI is capable of building complex features in a coherent manner. But it has trouble realizing those features exist as part of a larger system and need to fit upstream and downstream workflows. IMO that's where human engineers come in.
You're using it wrong, then. If you don't at least run your code through a frontier model for review, you're either unnecessarily wasting time and opportunities to improve, if it's a hobby, or committing professional malpractice, if someone is paying for your time.
Your code is not as bug-free as you think it is. No, really. Trust me on that. I didn't believe it either. You don't need to let a clanker write your code, but you need to let one -- ideally more than one --- review it.
> The offence was that I had broken rule #9, which I hadn’t noticed, and was new since the last time I posted there. This rule forbids sharing any software that involves AI at all
Linus Torvalds recently said he uses AI to develop Java GUIs because he doesn't
know how to write Java GUIs. Between the mods of r/java and Linus Torvalds, I know who I trust more with judging new technological potential.
Here is more from a recent interview:
"I used to think it was just not very good — but now I’m at the point where I actually really like using AI. [...] I don’t do a lot of kernel programming. I’m a maintainer. The Linux kernel is a project where other people do the real work, and I act as the collection point. But I still enjoy programming immensely. I think AI is a wonderful tool if you use it correctly and treat it as a tool, and I find it makes programming much more enjoyable. [...]
I started programming in 1981 or so, and back then computers were much simpler, and you could understand what they were doing, and also the programs you compared your own programs to were much simpler.
It’s a different story today. The bar in software engineering has grown so high that it’s hard to see your own small efforts as worth anything, because you’re used to all these polished, professional programs. [...]
A lot of people make fun of vibe coding, but I think it’s a wonderful way to find joy in programming. It makes you feel like you’re doing something relevant. It allows you, as a new programmer, to do things that you would otherwise have a really hard time with.”
> Linus Torvalds recently said he uses AI to develop Java GUIs because he doesn't know how to write Java GUIs
Given the quality of the output when I ask it to do things I do know how to do, I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of using AI to do things I don't know how to do myself. It reeks of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
I have a slightly more nuanced take on it — I use Claude to write Ansible playbooks for my homelab because I know enough about server management to have a clear opinion on how I want things done and why, and enough Ansible that I understand the fundamentals and can recognise (but not write) idiomatic playbooks. That's the perfect storm of getting the LLM to do something I'm not good at, while still being able to judge its output.
>Projects like the OpenJDK almost certainly already have substantial amounts of AI-assisted code. So a strict No-AI policy in a sub like /r/java, if we follow the letter of the rule, should disallow sharing even links to OpenJDK. But that’s absurd.
It’s tolerable mostly by dipping in for targeted issues and lurking. I stopped contributing to any subreddit either by commenting or posting. In many subreddits to which I tried to contribute in the past, users seem not to care in the least that I’ve given thoughtful answers. So I lurk, taking what I need without feeling obligated to reciprocate. In other settings I try to add value; but for Reddit, I don’t care.
I am comfortable on Reddit because I understand that it's made up of thousands of sub-communities that vary wildly in how interesting/friendly they are.
I don't understand this desire to ignore that aspect and pompously dismiss Reddit as a whole. It's like dismissing an entire country as worthless because you didn't like the vibe in a couple of the big cities.
It's an aristocracy with the progenitors being chosen on a first come first rule base. One could say: "So what? It's a private website with its own rules, make your own!", but then again for most topics and most groups the relevant subreddits are THE biggest forums: Country, province, city specific subreddits, politics, etc. And that makes it extremely problematic.
Reddit might be a private company but the reach of their subreddits makes them a significant player in world wide public opinion forming and opinion sharing -and they largely leave it in the hands of powertripping, chronically online weirdos.
Honestly, having done it, being a mod on reddit is such a thankless endeavor. You're absolutely swamped with bots, influencers baiting engagement, absolutely vile humans posting hateful stuff, etc. The mods are overwhelmed so they bring in automod and start giving it overly strict instructions. Good contributions get removed by mistake. Good faith posters get tired of waiting for approval, so they leave for elsewhere and you're left with the same repetitive posts.
You, as a user, only see one side of it. I'd quit, but I don't want to let down good people who are making an honest effort to keep the sub a nice place to be. Some part of me hopes I catch another site wide shadowban for vpn usage, and I have an excuse to put my account to the torch and start over as just a normal user
On our sub, you pretty much get banned for incivility, bot activity, and the like. We purposely welcome disagreement provided it's constructive and civil.
Now, post removals, we do a lot more of. We do try to moderate the sub such that it has an open, positive vibe in line with it's stated purpose.
I do fully understand what you're saying though. I've been banned for everything from merely asking that a sub enforce it's rules consistently, to asking for sources, to even posting in a particular collection of subs that another sub found objectionable. You have to run pretty far afoul of reddits sitewide rules as a mod to be removed from the position. That's why you see so many thing2 or thingNoCensor subs on subreddit maps.
> Insisting on hand-coding a project for these reasons is akin to choosing a shovel over an excavator
This is a great analogy because an excavator is much more expensive than a shovel and can’t fit into small places, so it’s only worth it for large projects.
Given the amount of AI generated bullshit I have to deal with, I have quite some sympathy with the r/java mods.
Maybe I would tend a bit to the "very clearly state if and what was done by AI" side of things, but I would definitely love to ban all the 95% overconfident agent, 5% pebkac customers that are spamming our ticket queues.
Yesterday, I received a lifetime ban from r/MiSTerFPGA for simply replying to a post showcasing an AI-generated core with the text "ai poison"
Two words, no warning - Lifetime ban
Regardless as to whichever side of the camp you're on on this issue, the hysteria is clear. Everyone's so edgy and reactionary. You could probably say the same about my comment.
It's just going to make people go elsewhere for Java discussion.
Similar to how subreddit mods often banned people for saying things that they correctly or incorrectly perceived as being right-wing, being hate speech, etc.
And some of those people just made their own websites. Musk bought X. Etc. The overall level of speech online coming from people who would have been banned by those Reddit mods probably increased rather than decreased.
I'd define a manager as someone who doesn't, in principle, need to understand the fundamental details of the work, just those that affect the managing.
If you make this stand, you're committed to calling many other professions managers, which you don't. You probably haven't fully cashed out your own position yet.
> In 2026, if you are still writing code “by hand” without AI assistance, then either you haven’t tried using AI, or you are just coding for fun — without any desire to be productive. However, if you have a goal in mind to build something, then you would be foolish to do it “by hand”.
What an insane assertion. While it is undeniable that AI has gotten good at writing code, there are absolutely times where it makes sense to reject it (for writing, at least), such as when a high degree of comprehension and correctness is required. People have been "productive" writing code by "hand" for over 50 years. This hasn't changed, though AI does in many cases incrementally improve productivity, it does not always and it does not mean not using it is inherently unproductive.
For instance, for many libraries such as the ones I use to access databases or do complex calculations, I would like it to, at the very least, not be immediately obvious the project was vibe coded. Would you have still been banned if it wasn't so obvious you had prompted your way through the whole library? If it is obvious you prompted blindly, how can the code be human quality?
> some guy off the street can type a prompt into AI, and produce better code than we could. It’s not fair.
AI rarely seems to write better code than humans. It certainly writes mostly functional code faster. But significant time is lost in review compared to human code in my professional experience.
> AI rarely seems to write better code than humans.
That's my experience as well.
AI does a decent job of reviewing and finding bugs, but it has no concept of what makes code good or bad - too much state, convoluted logic, no invariants, unnecessary methods, poorly defined abstractions, not relying on fail-fast etc.
It's similar to work from a junior developer with little experience maintaining code over a longer period of time.
Not insane at all. There are two types of developers: those who do it primarily for the outcomes, and those who do it primarily for the craft. These are fundamental orientations.
Do craft people like outcomes? Sure. Can outcome people appreciate craft? Sure. But fundamentally, you typically fall more in one camp than the other.
And this assertion comes from the outcome people. Is it insane? No. To assert it's insane is insane, because it shows a fundamental disconnect from the economics of software development.
Which is about right, because the craft people don't do something primarily for the economics.
I do care about craft, but I am not considering craft in my comment. My problem is that craft and correctness are often correlated, and I do care about correctness. I care that the software I ship to end users, and especially the libraries that other software is built upon, are relatively bug free. A good way to assure this is to spend a long time, as a human, reasoning over what the AI wrote.
At work, I've frequently used AI to rapidly build MVPs. Then I get back to work and spend a lot of time on my own, with the help of AI, and with the help of code review from my teammates, raising the quality and correctness bar. Much longer than it would've taken if I just wrote it myself out of the gate, though there is still a net AI productivity gain because writing is just so so much faster.
All this is to say is that I do not care* if AI or a human wrote a library in actuality, but if it is obvious from the code and readme that an AI (or an amateur human) wrote it, I will reject the library because it is clear it is not up to the spec I demand. But tovalds can use AI all he wants in linux as long as the correctness of the output remains the same.
* perhaps I care slightly because on a more personal level, I do think its a little sad, though in a professional capacity I do not care.
False dichotomy IMO.
I've rarely met a "craft" person that authors TLA+ models to find correctness issues in their systems. And yet as an outcome person I frequently ask my AI minions to do this and similar exercises.
What I think you're actually describing is competency using AI as a tool to drive effective and correct outcomes. That takes practice and systems - same as it ever was.
If you buy in, I think you'll find you can create great, correct systems... only more than you could ever do alone. Without N*N comms overhead. Without having to convince your louder, less competent teammate to actually finish their work.
> What I think you're actually describing is competency using AI as a tool to drive effective and correct outcomes. That takes practice and systems - same as it ever was.
Right, but I suspect (the author did not link the library) that this was not what was happening. I suspect the Java mods looked at the library for a solid 30 seconds and it was immediately obvious there was heavy AI usage in a more negative way.
I feel I fall into two camps for different projects. I have a hobby project where I'm writing native UI components by hand without AI, and managing memory in an Arena allocator I wrote myself. I also have a hobby project where I honestly don't touch the code, I just think in terms of systems run per frame and the time complexity of different algorithms, making Claude do it. Most personal projects are somewhere in between. I don't think either approach is insane, immoral, or any other hyperbole.
> I don't think either approach is insane, immoral, or any other hyperbole.
Agree! To me it comes down to intention and attention.
Depending on my *intention*, I should devote more or less of my *attention* to one thing vs another.
Another way to think about it is essential vs incidental attention, which I borrow from essential vs incidental complexity [0].
Many things require attention, or it doesn't perform correctly. Essential attention. Many, many more things don't require my full attention, and they'll still perform adequately. They satisfice.
Farm out the tasks that require only incidental attention.
[0]:https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...
Thanks for the link. Software is all about managing complexity. I like the point about testing and external reasoning. LLMs can write a lot of tests in short order, many of which don't do much to help the program. It enjoys "pinning" behavior, which is basically just confirming a golden path and doing nothing to actually examine the behavior of a module under various conditions.
I'd argue that in a commercial setting, the measurable deliverable is ROI impact.
And that doesn't always come from building more software. That's where the craft is. AI just helps you build more software.
It depends on how you use it.
AI helps you build more software in the same way that a C compiler helps you build more assembler.
I spend far more tokens on specification and verification than I do on actual feature-code generation.
And with it a small team of 3 developed something in just a few weeks that would have normally taken us 12 months. And we are selling it for multiple-seven figures to customers who (by all rights) should have been able to token-gen their way to the same outcome, but haven't.
So there is clearly some value in the people, and clearly some value in the AI. But I think people are misplacing/misattributing which goes where, in some cases.
[dead]
AI assistance is not vibe coding. You can use AI and not let it write a single line of code.
When I make manual changes I run them through an audit and risk analysis agent to make sure I didn't miss anything important.
This has caught more errors than our test suite lately.
To quote the author:
> I would never actually ship any code anymore without using AI to review it
I can very much understand how the author can come off as calling people insane for not using AI to generate the code itself, but the impression I got is that he's calling people insane for not using AI at all in the coding process, i.e. for refusing to use AI even for code review.
And let's be fair: if you're not willing to let a completely local model (so as to put aside privacy concerns and API cost concerns), in a sandbox with read-only permissions, conduct code review for you in 2026, then yeah, I think you're doing the equivalent of refusing to take antibiotics. You can decide to reject the review results, or re-word the proposed fixes, but to refuse AI assistance at all as a matter of principle during the review stage is no longer a mainstream defensible position.
If the author just used AI as one element of code review, would the author still have been banned? The answer is obviously unknowable, but I think it is unlikely.
Where do you draw the line with what's considered "AI"?
There's a very clear pattern regarding pushback against AI, and it's not as ideological or political as you're making it out to be.
Lots of devs absolutely hate linters just as much, or maybe even more, than LLMs. It's simply a matter of having precise control over the result that gels with the dev's thought process enough to approve a release.
Let's be honest here. If you've got at least an 8-hour day to wrap up a medium size change of less than 1k LOC, the debate over LLMs is more of a personality judgement than advocating for a productivity tool. It's still going to get reviewed anyway, and most bugs in the software most people write for a living aren't subtle mistakes.
Lots of devs absolutely hate linters just as much, or maybe even more, than LLMs.
I never had much use for lint, myself. Back when Dr. Dobb's Journal used to publish ads for a commercial linter that included "spot the bug" quizzes, I could always spot the bug.
The thing is, though, LLMs are good at spotting semantic issues, not just C++ footgun #69,105. That's the point where I stopped worrying and learned to love the bot, when it found more issues with my code than I found with its own. I think that was Opus 4.6.
> but to refuse AI assistance at all as a matter of principle during the review stage is no longer a mainstream defensible position.
Personally the position strikes me more like the people of yore who would write code entirely in vim/emacs or, god forbid, notepad++, while the rest of us were using IDEs. We can all sit on our high horses and croon about how much more productive they'd be if they just tried a little bit of AI – "come on bro, just a puff" – but they've got their workflow and it isn't broken.
> AI rarely seems to write better code than humans
The thing is since Fable 5+ generation of models this is not true anymore.
I have access to these models at work. I am not out of touch.
I apologize for my skepticism, but I have literally heard this same claim made with every single generation of models that comes out.
For a while, I dutifully believed it, and would go try again, and it would be awful.
I'd then have another conversation like this, where someone would say something along the lines of, "sure, sure but this NEW model now fixes all that and is really awesome!"
I'll revisit it when I start seeing some real studies that show real productivity increases rather than stuff that just shifts the burden of broken slop onto PR reviewers while claiming awesome speed.
You may also consider that developers (like any person in any profession) exist on spectrum of competency, and you may just be better than most of them.
But models are climbing their way up the percentile charts.
90% of the software development in the work, by volume, can be done by people who are in the 50th percentile of skill.
So these model advances do meaningfully expand the amount of "useful" work that can be done without people. And simultaneously not be "good enough" for the specific kind of work you find yourself doing day to day.
Both can be true.
Grab the last 5,000 lines of code you wrote, and that you thought was bug-free. Run it through Opus 5.5 or Fable 5.1 and post what it finds (and be honest about it, given that nothing is at stake but an Internet argument.)
>> AI rarely seems to write better code than humans.
This assertion is at the crux of a lot of these debates. Fundamentally it depends on what is meant by "better code", does it not?
Code that is bug free? Frontier models are inarguably better at that, because they can think of far more edge cases and test each one much faster than you can. You can argue that its code and surrounding tests are frequently overkill, but that's a dial you can tweak until you're happy.
Code that is performant? Frontier models are inarguably better at that too. They can create a benchmark harness and run it over and over to optimize the code they wrote while you're still poring over the docs on which method of iterating over a list is faster.
Code that is secure? Frontier models are also better at that, for the above two reasons: they can create complex security vulnerability plans and run swarms of agents to audit the code and attack the system that runs that code until it's like a god damn fortress.
Code that is easily understood by humans and fits coherently with the rest? I think humans are better at this still, because humans are definitionally the best at understanding what is easily understood by humans. I posit that this definition of "better code" is quickly going out of fashion though.
> Code that is bug free? Code that is performant? Code that is secure?
I have found that on the level of an individual function, this might very well be the case. On the level of an entire system, it very quickly falls apart and you get a lot of redundancies which cause security, bug and performance recessions, because nobody has really solved the issue of AI understanding whole systems at the time of inference.
I think it goes beyond individual functions. AI is capable of building complex features in a coherent manner. But it has trouble realizing those features exist as part of a larger system and need to fit upstream and downstream workflows. IMO that's where human engineers come in.
AI rarely seems to write better code than humans
You're using it wrong, then. If you don't at least run your code through a frontier model for review, you're either unnecessarily wasting time and opportunities to improve, if it's a hobby, or committing professional malpractice, if someone is paying for your time.
Your code is not as bug-free as you think it is. No, really. Trust me on that. I didn't believe it either. You don't need to let a clanker write your code, but you need to let one -- ideally more than one --- review it.
> The offence was that I had broken rule #9, which I hadn’t noticed, and was new since the last time I posted there. This rule forbids sharing any software that involves AI at all
Linus Torvalds recently said he uses AI to develop Java GUIs because he doesn't know how to write Java GUIs. Between the mods of r/java and Linus Torvalds, I know who I trust more with judging new technological potential.
Here is more from a recent interview:
"I used to think it was just not very good — but now I’m at the point where I actually really like using AI. [...] I don’t do a lot of kernel programming. I’m a maintainer. The Linux kernel is a project where other people do the real work, and I act as the collection point. But I still enjoy programming immensely. I think AI is a wonderful tool if you use it correctly and treat it as a tool, and I find it makes programming much more enjoyable. [...]
I started programming in 1981 or so, and back then computers were much simpler, and you could understand what they were doing, and also the programs you compared your own programs to were much simpler.
It’s a different story today. The bar in software engineering has grown so high that it’s hard to see your own small efforts as worth anything, because you’re used to all these polished, professional programs. [...]
A lot of people make fun of vibe coding, but I think it’s a wonderful way to find joy in programming. It makes you feel like you’re doing something relevant. It allows you, as a new programmer, to do things that you would otherwise have a really hard time with.”
https://www.zdnet.com/tech/linus-torvalds-ai-coding-programm...
> Linus Torvalds recently said he uses AI to develop Java GUIs because he doesn't know how to write Java GUIs
Given the quality of the output when I ask it to do things I do know how to do, I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of using AI to do things I don't know how to do myself. It reeks of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
I have a slightly more nuanced take on it — I use Claude to write Ansible playbooks for my homelab because I know enough about server management to have a clear opinion on how I want things done and why, and enough Ansible that I understand the fundamentals and can recognise (but not write) idiomatic playbooks. That's the perfect storm of getting the LLM to do something I'm not good at, while still being able to judge its output.
>Projects like the OpenJDK almost certainly already have substantial amounts of AI-assisted code. So a strict No-AI policy in a sub like /r/java, if we follow the letter of the rule, should disallow sharing even links to OpenJDK. But that’s absurd.
Why no mention https://openjdk.org/legal/ai ? even if you think it lie you should say that
Being banned from reddit is a blessing. Such a weird place.
Like any social media it really depends where you go.
There are tons of smaller ones that offer good value for your time, my personal favourites are r/ragdolls and r/raspberrypi
Yeah there are some very small subreddits that are fine and that I still visit. But I'd wager there are 0 large subreddits which aren't awful.
> Being banned from reddit is a blessing
It’s tolerable mostly by dipping in for targeted issues and lurking. I stopped contributing to any subreddit either by commenting or posting. In many subreddits to which I tried to contribute in the past, users seem not to care in the least that I’ve given thoughtful answers. So I lurk, taking what I need without feeling obligated to reciprocate. In other settings I try to add value; but for Reddit, I don’t care.
I'd be more concerned by people comfortable on Reddit.
I think it's largely become focused on generating AI training drivvel for current TV shows.
I am comfortable on Reddit because I understand that it's made up of thousands of sub-communities that vary wildly in how interesting/friendly they are.
I don't understand this desire to ignore that aspect and pompously dismiss Reddit as a whole. It's like dismissing an entire country as worthless because you didn't like the vibe in a couple of the big cities.
More like saying you don't understand why someone would visit a country with hard no go zones.
A belief I hold not of just Reddit but several countries I'm surprised have a tourism industry[0]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/06/turkey-blocks-...
Yeah, news aggregators, amirite?
> Such a weird place.
It's an aristocracy with the progenitors being chosen on a first come first rule base. One could say: "So what? It's a private website with its own rules, make your own!", but then again for most topics and most groups the relevant subreddits are THE biggest forums: Country, province, city specific subreddits, politics, etc. And that makes it extremely problematic.
Reddit might be a private company but the reach of their subreddits makes them a significant player in world wide public opinion forming and opinion sharing -and they largely leave it in the hands of powertripping, chronically online weirdos.
You saying that in HN? HN can be as toxic just like any other communities.
Monitor my comment go grey in few minutes.
HN can also be very weird but not having reddit mods makes it 1000x better.
Yeah, instead you get random users doing shadow modding instead. You don't even know who to be annoyed with!
Honestly, having done it, being a mod on reddit is such a thankless endeavor. You're absolutely swamped with bots, influencers baiting engagement, absolutely vile humans posting hateful stuff, etc. The mods are overwhelmed so they bring in automod and start giving it overly strict instructions. Good contributions get removed by mistake. Good faith posters get tired of waiting for approval, so they leave for elsewhere and you're left with the same repetitive posts.
You, as a user, only see one side of it. I'd quit, but I don't want to let down good people who are making an honest effort to keep the sub a nice place to be. Some part of me hopes I catch another site wide shadowban for vpn usage, and I have an excuse to put my account to the torch and start over as just a normal user
Mods require "humans". Humans are inheritantly biased toward their core beliefs and philophies when they mod.
After researches, I can tell where they are learning toward.
There are good people but mods will eventually try to "shape" your mind accroding to what they believe in regardless what HN officially claims to do.
Same for Reddit and other "mod" maintained communities.
And who has the most people in the world?
Automod is not the biggest issue (although it is indeed a pain in the ass).
The biggest issue is power tripping reddit mods, and mods trying to shape the discourse by deleting posts or banning dissenting voices.
Banning someone because their software uses AI is clearly an example of it.
On our sub, you pretty much get banned for incivility, bot activity, and the like. We purposely welcome disagreement provided it's constructive and civil.
Now, post removals, we do a lot more of. We do try to moderate the sub such that it has an open, positive vibe in line with it's stated purpose.
I do fully understand what you're saying though. I've been banned for everything from merely asking that a sub enforce it's rules consistently, to asking for sources, to even posting in a particular collection of subs that another sub found objectionable. You have to run pretty far afoul of reddits sitewide rules as a mod to be removed from the position. That's why you see so many thing2 or thingNoCensor subs on subreddit maps.
I have "unjoin"ed all tech subreddits given the "power/acid tripping" mods. Just not worth it any more.
I do agree HN is substantially better, more behaved though I find many too questionable
> Insisting on hand-coding a project for these reasons is akin to choosing a shovel over an excavator
This is a great analogy because an excavator is much more expensive than a shovel and can’t fit into small places, so it’s only worth it for large projects.
Given the amount of AI generated bullshit I have to deal with, I have quite some sympathy with the r/java mods.
Maybe I would tend a bit to the "very clearly state if and what was done by AI" side of things, but I would definitely love to ban all the 95% overconfident agent, 5% pebkac customers that are spamming our ticket queues.
Yesterday, I received a lifetime ban from r/MiSTerFPGA for simply replying to a post showcasing an AI-generated core with the text "ai poison"
Two words, no warning - Lifetime ban
Regardless as to whichever side of the camp you're on on this issue, the hysteria is clear. Everyone's so edgy and reactionary. You could probably say the same about my comment.
It's just going to make people go elsewhere for Java discussion.
Similar to how subreddit mods often banned people for saying things that they correctly or incorrectly perceived as being right-wing, being hate speech, etc.
And some of those people just made their own websites. Musk bought X. Etc. The overall level of speech online coming from people who would have been banned by those Reddit mods probably increased rather than decreased.
> if you are still writing code “by hand” without AI assistance, then either you haven’t tried using AI, or you are just coding for fun
Writing code by hand is writing code, with AI assistance you don’t write code, you order code. You became a manager
I'd define a manager as someone who doesn't, in principle, need to understand the fundamental details of the work, just those that affect the managing.
If you make this stand, you're committed to calling many other professions managers, which you don't. You probably haven't fully cashed out your own position yet.
A manager who understands the details is just a manager.
Where is the difference between telling an AI what to do and telling a human programmer?
Lets make an experiment. I give you a slow AI which you can prompt once a day and you get the answer the next day.
Are you still a programmer?
What if I randomly replace the AI with human programmer who delivers your code.
Still a programmer if a human wrote it?
I can ask AI to create an illustration but I would call myself an illustrator.
I wouldn’t even claim I calculated the root of 1,234,567 when I used a calculator to do it.
I think everyone just forgot about pair programming.
Like the group projects in school where one did all the writing and the other said we did it.
it doesn't matter who does the writing, it matters who does the thinking, that the whole deal of pair programming.
Completely agree with this. I see that people who don't follow this mindset are mostly falling behind.
Thank you for reminding us! The previous reminder was already 5 min ago and I almost slipped and started "coding by hand". I'm back on track!
Glad to be of service. Here is your next reminder to stop yourself from "coding by hand" :D
Yeah, yeah. AI is better than we are. Manual coding is obsolete. The em-dash rules.
Are you even human or just an angry bot who has been told "not to back down"?
But Java is getting more and more attractive. Who would have thought?
> AI is better at coding than we are now
lol
> I’m not so upset by the banning.
> At some point in the future, I’m sure this irony will become too obvious to ignore and they’ll need to move the goal posts.
This person is very sour indeed.
[flagged]