> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
Writing code is not the bottleneck anymore, making decisions is. Making the right decisions needs context and thinking. A coffee break might actually help productivity. Driving a Ferrari full speed in a crowded city - only because you can - doesn't make the outcome better.
I agree with you, but I'd say that writing code hasn't been the bottleneck in a lot of industries for quite some time.
Even in the 90s, the internet and the web dramatically lowered the costs of distribution, and YC itself was built on top of that (ViaWeb).
Then there has been so many frameworks, libraries, tools, services and APIs to pick and choose from that most of the coding work has been about organization, selling an idea and doing a lot of testing. Which are still unsolved problems.
The only new idea here is the idea that Software Developers are disposable.
This was brought by the same people who did RTO and layoffs post-covid, but now with support of non-tech workers who want a piece of that (supposedly) sweet money.
And yet the clueless fans swoon about how much faster they can spit out unmaintainable code now. There are a lot of people who will have to learn the hard way.
I can't believe OP here. Where are these software teams, are they in the room with him? My teams are more stressed than ever: leadership doesn't understand why they aren't 5x more productive - even if they were 1.1x more productive, the ops teams aren't scaling, the defect management isn't scaling, the guy yelling about their Jira ticket status updates is just getting louder, and they are being pressured to reduce token spend while pressured to release more software.
Some motherfucker today suggested we should use Haiku for all coding tasks, and this guy is a Sr Director of real humans.
these always seem to be written in a vacuum, and certainly not in any mainline silicon valley startup or bigco for the past two years. everyone is stressed and no one is happy.
I think this is a bit misleading, it isn’t laziness.
I played with our AI and it found about 100 real but subtle issues in the codebase. Took less than 30 minutes to find what would have taken a sharp senior months.
I started reviewing the changes manually. They look pretty good but I want to understand each one. Some are design issues and our product needs weren’t spelled out to the AI.
I could blindly put all 100 up for review in half an hour or take a full week to scrutinize them.
So yeah, the process with AI is going to take 100x longer what it could have been.
It’s running locally on my machine. It’s the stuff that only I wanted for my particular needs. It’s the stuff that wouldn’t have been built otherwise because it wouldn’t have been worth the effort. I’m guessing this is true for a lot of people.
1. A frontend to MacOS Quicklook that gives me many additional playback controls.
2. A daemon that listens for messages on my LAN to add scheduled notifications to my preferred app launcher without cluttering my reminders.
3. An improved version of a tool I built to watch for specific streamers and capture the content compared to the one I created years ago. I wouldn’t have enhanced it beyond the version I had that was good enough.
4. A metadata inspector that I can invoke in the GUI with a hotkey focusing only on the stuff I’m interested in seeing.
5. A hotkey terminal launcher based on the color themes I have configured on my device so I can arrow through and choose in the moment.
Same here. I'm making more software than ever, for myself, and I'm finding it incredibly useful. But even though I've been a proud open-source software developer, I'm not releasing this new code because I don't see the value in it: I won't get the credit (because I "only" designed it, and didn't write the code), nor will anyone else use it, and if they did use it, I wouldn't want another maintenance burden for myself. So it stays private.
Same here. I do think people should release some of this personal software eventually though. But having some restrain and waiting until it has properly proved useful and matured a bit does everyone a favor IMO
Same. I've spent 20 years trying tool after tool and finding some part of it unfit, some stupid edge case for my broken brain. I have so much of my own crap now that I'm building new crap to manage the crap. If my professionally-sourced anxiety wasn't eating my stomach lining I'd be having a great time!
This part is one I have trouble understanding. Why bring on all this anxiety? I can't see an outcome for all this vibecoding except one that involves crashing and burning.
I saw many comments here saying SaaS is dead, for example. That any service can now be vibecoded and replicated internally. And I can't help but think if they've ever tried running, supporting and maintaining a piece of software. The code was never the hardest part. Not even close. In fact, cheap "coding" has been a thing for over 25 years now if that's what you wanted.
To me this feels like saying everyone can be a carpenter now because it's so cheap and easy to just buy a hammer and some nails and go at it.
I do think it's great to hear that people can now vibecode their own custom fit tools that work exactly the way they want them to. But that process is not free.
Same. I make a lot of stuff to stratch hyper-personal itches or replace paid software with a narrow solution for my use case, running on my own devices or my home server. I don't post most of it online because I figure anyone else with the same need can generate their own custom solution.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of more and better features in existing products.
After reading these two points, I had to scroll down to see if it was the opening of some elaborate joke, because I'm seeing more bugs, worse performance, and less and worse features.
If we released software with the number of defects in the popular coding tools, we'd be out of business before the end of the year. But they persist- for some verticals speed matters over quality.
I personally made a bunch of net new, really good software that I use myself and that is much better than alternatives. You will not see that software though, because:
1. Marketing (and distribution) of said software is a chore, and doesn't really give me any benefits
2. It's tailored to me rather than to average Joe.
Same here. I have now the best tools I’ve ever had just because I made them tailored to me and my exact nitpicks.
Advertising them now would just be creating more noise on the internet.
Same here. I'm a bioinformatician, and most of the software I'd have historically been expected to use was cobbled together by biologists then left to rot once the accompanying white paper was published.
I've been able to create my own tooling that beats out the preexisting best across every metric. It's incredible.
I built myself a full walkabe 3D plan of my house for my renovation project over the weekend, complete with path tracing renderer, different drawing styles, furniture arrangements and accurate models of different windows styles that I consider ordering, all based on actual blueprints and materials. I looked for usable software for that before but everything was either commercial garbage that wanted you to pony up a lot of money beforehand or hard to use manually. With AI I can build stuff like that over a weekend and I can tell it to place stuff and design things in text and using photos and 3D scans, it takes care of actual implementation. That's much better than spending days or weeks with locked down software trying to make it do what I want.
So maybe the big revolution is that we won't have "big software" that tries to cater to all kinds of users but "small software" that is tailored perfectly to the needs of a single user.
I think a lot of us are trying really hard here to avoid the simplest and most obvious answer, which is that AI coding software is helpful, but doesn't deliver the kind of productivity gains boosters are talking about.
There's a bunch of reasons for this, but the obvious one to me is just that I haven't seen any backed up claims that actually break down how a 10x (or similar) speed up would get delivered in practice.
For the sake of an example, let's imagine an engineer who works an 8 hour day split up like this:
- 2 hours: investigating and debugging potential issues
- 1 hour: reviewing code
- 2 hours: in various team meetings, catch ups or otherwise
- 1 hour: designing (including at a level of writing code for prototyping etc)
- 2 hours: actually writing code
I think that's a semi-reasonable day breakdown. Realistically, I think AI helps debug faster, and generate code faster. Possibly design work too, but I think this isn't really the case since AI workflows necessitate a lot more design work in order to make the AI generation deterministic.
So looking at that day, if I was able to fully automate writing code and debugging issues so that it took 0 time at all (which I think is a very optimistic assessment of the actual speed ups AI provides), we're looking at a 2x speed up of an engineers productivity.
If we think AI makes those things twice as fast (so 2 hours, instead of 4) the engineer is now at a 1.25x speed up. That's great, but it's hardly revolutionary. It'll change your output something like the way going from a team of 4 to a team of 5 might do.
This is obviously complete conjecture and I'm sure the average time engineers spend on things is different, but I think there's an obvious take away. If you want to make claims about the performance impact of code, you need to know where the code spends its time, and what impact you're making on those sections of code.
Similarly, if you want to know what performance gains are being made, you need to know what engineers spend their time doing and what impact AI is having of those tasks.
I've seen very little attempt to actually make realistic claims on that basis, and a lot of vibes-based "wooah, AI makes me so much faster" type claims. Those claims are obviously not nothing, but I wouldn't trust people's gut reactions to make serious claims about the overall productivity changes in our entire industry.
Yeah that's so true! I thought that as I was writing, but figured it proved my point more that even with a really charitable interpretation, it's hard to make he case for a 10x speed up at a high level.
I remember this being one of the first things I had to learn in my first "real" job. Like someone literally had to tell me there's not much of a difference between coding six hours in a day and one. Later on I learned there's just a class of tasks that just take time for your unconscious brain to break it down to understand it. Algorithms are like this. A lot of things that have unintuitive physical components are like this, e.g. bending on harmonica. Some things you just have to show up every day, give it your best effort and then something will click. Programming is like that.
I think there's a type of company for whom this works; a small team really can deliver a massive volume, but it cannot be constrained by your typical software bigco superstructure. Ops/Readiness/Process Engineering/Enterprise Arch/Risk etc, entrenched concerns with soft power through pure delivery friction.
You need to be an an org who is able to deliver directly to your consumer, who needs to be defect-tolerant with the expectation of quick iteration. That customer will have access to advanced tools that its competition is unwilling to adopt. Many will fail.
There are many verticals for which this does not work at all - but this is unlikely to be the permanent state. The new model will work its way through the market, and companies will fall as fast-moving competitors find a willing customer segment they can target, make that segment out-compete the others using their access to tools with superior abilities but higher defect rates. The customer base will eventually adopt, having become accustomed to this, and so slowly expectations will change, and so will our field.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
I would like to see some of this software improvement in the form of fewer bugs. If anything it's adding more bugs.
I'll give an example from a game I like called ARC Raiders. For the first ~9 months they did not fix any of the bugs in the main menu. The damn main menu! The first thing you see when you load the game! They also failed to fix, in that time, the bug where simply pressing the Xbox button on the controller would break in-game voice chat.
They only just solved that, as of a few days ago. The main menu bugs still exist.
Dealing with third-party overlays (I presume that's the main menu bug you're talking about) is one of the most annoying things in game development due to how it hooks into the rendering pipeline and not an easy fix.
If the photocraft suite had been manually written in 2022, with the exact same source code as it has right now, they would be the poster open-source project that people would point to for the power of an open-source community over proprietary software and be praised for the high standards of the source code.
Yeah, the Photocraft (or whatever that photoshop clone name is, naming everything *craft just blends the names together in my head) program, for example, is way too slow in WASM to be usable, I think it ran on a single thread without using Worker and basic optimization features like that.
Just because you can throw tens of thousands of dollars at frontier LLMs doesn't mean what they write would be good, you still need to have some oversight for their work.
expecting it to work well in wasm seems a bit too high of a bar.
It works relatively well in native mode as a standalone app (tho not being an actual photoshop expert, i dont know if the features compete properly, i simply hear that those trying it are impressed).
The excel clone works well enough for me to do taxes on, even tho the look and feel is a bit janky. I would stick with google sheets, but it's a usable replacement if i didnt already have sheets.
Sure, but we weren't really seeing that at all. At least, not to that scale or degree at that speed right?
I'm seeing people vibe-code inference engines for custom hardware/models too. Are they good? That remains to be seen, but I didn't used to see this at all.
It does feel like something has changed to me lately. I expect it's only going to accelerate, and the quality only going to increase.
The problem with that is that it implicitly assumes things will progress in the way we're used to.
AI written software doing the exact thing it was supposed to but breaking apart on any further improvements or changes matches what I've seen from AI generated output. The code is often bloated and fragile.
Maybe in 2 years the only jobs devs can get anymore is working for Frontier Labs to build training data / RL environments to improve performance on this task. Who knows? In the limit it seems like a solvable problem...
"Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)"
This is not what I am hearing from people who work in LLM heavy environments at all. The exact opposite seems to be the case.
Almost all of the trending repos on GitHub are _about_ AI: zillion of harnesses and similar AI orchestration tools. So most of the extra efficiency gained by AI usage seems to be spent on building more AI tools and not software for end users or libraries for AIs and humans to build such software.
Developers have never seen a process they didn't fantasize about automating. You see so many of these tools because it's a completely new space, fertile ground, and developers want to automate even more of the development flow so they can spend more time deciding what to build instead of shepherding along a gaggle of agents.
It's all being built to try and capture the value of creating the new, good software. Aka a cambrian explosion of developer tools - primarily used to create developer tools and twitter attention - so people use your developer tool to create developer tools. And wikis - thanks to Karpathy, we now measure Obsidian clones by the gross.
In my professional life however, we are NOT producing more software ($bigco). We are on the edge of it maybe. My experience is we've been on the razors edge - just enough staff to meet the business needs - and so every AI iteration sped up some process, which exposed some limit in a dependent process, which we tried to free up with a reorg, which cut capacity somewhere else, and the snake eats its tail. We've had enough iterations to get to a place where an increase in developer output probably won't cause the whole thing to fall over. I hope.
But anyway, I spend a lot of time exploring new dev tools, it's sort of a hobby of mine; I like to understand the state of "what's out there" and this has helped me professionally. This has recently become impossible do the sheer mass of llm productivity, while at the same time more fun than ever; the amount of crazy interesting and seemingly mature brand-new things (in the dev space) has astounded me. I found Swamp Club recently, like wtf where did this come from? It's like five dudes with LLMs.
Coding is only one part of software. There is resourcing, financing, research, planning, design, development, testing, distribution, training and support.
AI is a search engine. A good one, better than what was before that. (Which is not saying much, because the search landscape is severely distorted. For example, searching dispropotionately dominates browsing.) It can speed up searching and exploration. This is the natural limit of possible gains.
I thought that for a while, but it does things that go beyond what I can call search. (Search is an elastic term, but not infinitely so.)
For example, it's extraordinarily good at applying the searched-for information (once found) to a specific problem at hand—at least at the first-order level of putting existing pieces together in a correct way. It can do that much faster than I can, with far greater command of detail.
It can also find problems and correct them in my own work in a way that still amazes me. Again, not deep problems—they're first-order in the sense of being obvious deviations from correct practice - but to call this 'search' feels like a stretch. It's not searching for bugs in the code I just wrote and then returning a corrected version, as if one had been sitting somewhere waiting to be found.
Plenty of people insist it goes far beyond these types of things, and they're probably right—I'm not going to say they aren't, since I've been wrong enough times already. My point is that even these first-order things are enough, for me, to refute the it's-just-search view. It does things with search results that in the past, I would have had to do.
The underlying mechanism of that is still search. We do have similar mechanism; we can notice it in dreaming, delirium, "word salad" disorder and so on. It will generate formally "new" things and they will look convincingly normal, especially if our defences are down, as in sleep.
I am not sure what the current state of models is, but as far as I know lifting a limit on the model output length tends to noticeably degrade the quality of the result so that it starts to show the same delirious tones.
Fundamentally it is recalling of past experience, a reaction. In many ways it is an opposite of acquiring true new knowledge. We keep that mechanism in check using other human qualities models do not have.
Working with LLM is basically like hiring a madman. It can do useful work, but you cannot trust it. To be economically viable the verification cycle has to be cheap or the cost of an error must be small. Searching a library or doing a home project are fine. But these aren't the lucrative markets investors are dreaming of.
The quality of software we are creating at my day job has risen. Tests where there were never tests before, all new code has tests, it's all more rigorously reviewed, and we find prod bugs faster with the help of agents.
My own company has shipped a slew of features that were going to die in the backlog, tracked down almost every bug that comes through Sentry, and given me time to focus on bigger things (it's a 1-person company).
For myself, home automations that I was never going to spend the time getting "just right", I've replaced MyFitnessPal with an app I built, I've got more self-hosted projects running than ever before, and I've built websites and apps to scratch mine or my families needs that were never going to get built in the past.
When I run into an annoyance on my computer(s) now I don't just put up with it, I send an agent after it to figure out why it happened, how we can stop it from happening again, and/or if we can write some custom software to make the problem better or go away. It feels magical.
Pedantic much? It's new to me, it's new to the people using it. What's ever truly "new" then?
> Slop clones
This is getting boring. Many of us are creating custom software that scratch our particular (and sometimes others') itch. You can call it slop or whatever derisively term you want, it doesn't change the reality. Before I didn't have an app that did what I wanted, the way I wanted, now I do.
Even if some bloated, expensive software that may have contained those functions already exists, bespoke software that does exactly what I want, and only what I want, in the way I want, is still "new" in my opinion.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks
Straight up untrue anecdotally and by general sentiment in the industry.
In my experience, SaaS products almost all exist to externalise something that folks were doing in-house before. Its rare that a SaaS springs up to do something truly new
I think that's mainly true. Of course, there are specialized applications necessary to connect the data of one program to another or some fringe cases but by and large new software isn't really needed. A lot of it is coded because of an arms race (hackers vs. security) or to take advantage of people (more ways to make them spend money).
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
This might be the biggest factor in my opinion. Corporate incentives usually don't reward someone delivering 2x-10x, so an employee who suddenly found a way to multiply their productivity might be keeping that method to themselves and freeing up some time instead.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
I am yet to see the advancements in AI manifest in more leisure-time. It is simply that the amount of work we're expected to be able to pump out has increased, and the actual programming work is no longer what slows us down.
With RACE (which is great I use it daily) I have maybe 30 users. With Inboxctl there are (I think) 2 except me.
Recently I figured that there's no reason to work on open source because it's going to be a vaporware even if I set up the whole architecture. With paid software I might (at least) get paid for my time.
But long story short: there are no channels to share/market/show people. HN is hit or miss (most often miss).
Is it good software? Yes. I'm in this industry for more than 2 decades and it ticks all the boxes for "good software". But all the channels where you could meet it are dead waters.
There are cases where good old software never had their chance, such as Ted Nelsons Xanadu hypertext. It was mostly built, but when the programmers left, the algorithms were a huge barrier for new devs. Now LLMs can help new programmers to understand complex code bases and bring them back to life.
The software I create for myself has improved a lot.
I also see a lot of improvements in current software and games and fast iterations. But nothing new that is revolutionary.
1. Entrenched in-company interests create friction by just existing - Ops/Risk/Support/Arch/ProcessEng. Staffing is on the knifes edge, no buffer. And so going fast $here makes you slow $there.
2. Customers expect defect-free software, and compromising quality == churn == revenue loss.
3. Token costs are already astronomical, and everyone who could already cut headcount.
4. Mythos scared the shit out of everyone, and every last cent is allocated to Enterprise Risk (another entrenched friction).
It’s a lose/lose proposition for every software company with more than three management layers. We're frozen in place.
Here's my simple theory.
Increasing the level of quality is not rewarded and often actively discouraged.
Almost all software is stuck at the "barely tolerable minimum level of quality".
The quality level remains constant (or goes down) regardless of any productivity gain.
Any and all productivity gain is spent for expanding scope, chasing more features, etc...
Volume of work is increased so that the development team is perpetually understaffed.
I have never once seen a team that had what you could remotely call a healthy or appropriate level of staffing. It has always been "the absolute minimum we can possibly get away with and never more". This leaves zero room for any kind of maintenance or quality improvement. Every day is a fight just to keep the lights on. I have seen people queitly sneaking-in maintenance work because that was the only way it could be done.
Yea, that's because 80% of the work is getting to that level of quality and even most human devs struggle to get there, even with the necessary resources. So using a LLM which is trained on the absolutely average corpus of code produces the same level of average. Getting to that noticeable level of quality is difficult and time consuming and LLMs do not help you get there. But much like everyone thinks their baby is beautiful, they think the code they create is the same. And most of the time it isn't. Sorry about that but if quality was common, it wouldn't be called quality.
Thanks to AI, I was able to finish my bookkeeping and accounting app I had been working on years ago. https://financica.app
It’s not just “vibe coded”, it’s really damn good. Because thanks to AI, whenever I spot an issue, a quality of life increase etc I can just immediately implement it rather than have it seat in a perpetually growing backlog of “maybe one day”.
And there’s SO MANY standards to comply with especially in Europe and I just … implemented all of them. It’s more full featured than any of its competitors.
It runs the bookkeeping and accounting for all of my own companies plus plenty of customers. And the funny thing is for me, this is pretty much a side project. I just have people helping on sales, but all the development is me.
> I can just immediately implement it rather than have it seat in a perpetually growing backlog of “maybe one day”.
My backlog for my side-project/business had a number of things in it that were frankly never going to happen. They only existed in the backlog so I could say they were in the backlog and add a note about who expressed interest in it so that, if it reached a critical mass, I could justify dedicating the time. That backlog is largely empty now. Things I thought were a pipedream or a "well, maybe one day if this gets bigger" became a reality.
The "We're making more software instead of making software better" and "Most people don't adopt new software very often" points hits home.
But more importantly, why should the market accept your software? Since plenty of people are "making more software" cause they are trying to "make software better" while creating similar product with the use of AI, its difficult for the market to choose which software actually solves their problem.
On the other hand, many don't accept or adopt new software as they don't see the problem they are facing, or they don't mind the problem itself. So why bother adopting new software that isn't going to pluck the problem by the roots all together with its' use?
It doesn't really matter if we are making better software now, in the end, we know it will be better. Think of it like this: you have a very sick patient, and you prescribe a drug/protocol known to make them worse before they get better. So the intermediate step is not informative in any meaningful sense.
Human coders usually ask this question in a malicious way to imply that this technology doesn't just have to be faster than humans (which it is), it also has to produce better code (which it usually does) as cohesive product (so fixing features or refactoring in projects/products do not count) in record time (this is the trap because these models are not even a year old in their current advanced format). It's hopeless.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
Anecdotally, completely disagree. Maybe this is nostalgia, but I perceive a distinct and massive drop in software quality over the past few years.
Worst offenders for me are the poster children for LLM-based development. I run into bugs and performance issues with both Claude and Codex literally every day. I don't think I'm an outlier here, either.
- more bugs becoming visible that were hidden within the software we use daily
- more bugs (in absolute terms) as more people create more software in a very short amount of time (regardless of their professional training)
- less bugs in existing software as the developers and dev orgs of existing projects is capable of automating bug hunting, test case creation, ... in essence: They get a multiplying effect out of AI regarding their capabilities.
In short: Actual developers with actual experience (the more, the merrier) can do better work while the barrier to enter "the market" for untrained individuals is a lot lower resulting in a huge amount of new software whose "success" is to be determined.
> - less bugs in existing software as the developers and dev orgs of existing projects is capable of automating bug hunting, test case creation, ... in essence: They get a multiplying effect out of AI regarding their capabilities.
I'm not convinced there are more than a handful of orgs in the world who are disciplined enough to achieve this. Or organisationally willing to increase their QA Eng headcount sufficiently to achieve it.
There are so many stupid little bugs in software these days that should be straightforward to fix, but just aren't fixed. Visual quirks and rendering issues. Notification bells that don't clear properly. Formatting problems. And vibecoded apps like Claude Code themselves are the biggest perpetrators.
To add some related evidence to that, I browsed this report[1] for other reasons the other day, but it stood out to me that _100%_ of Forbes Global 2000 tech leaders said "their organization has experienced some form of AI-related downtime".
Dev being reckless with LLMs are going to ship faster than the one using it responsibly to improve quality, so it would make sense to first see a drop in quality before things improve.
AI firm code are likely a different category though.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
If the leadership (C-suite) is afraid to take the full responsibility over AI output, then the only rational choice for developers is to "pace the frontier" themselves.
I think this has to do with human bandwidth. We are required to read and reason about all generated code, but there is limit how much can each person process in a day.
If there are skills, design MCPs, automatic testing and evaluation, feature bug monitoring, security monitoring, crash handling and automatic fixes, then we could see the productivity in teams. But now it is still our responsibility and not responsibility of the system.
There's more of the stuff that's well known and understood. Any software with an ecosystem of integrations and connectors added a lot of connectors lately. CRMs, CMS and similar extended their functionality.
What we've seen very little of is fundamentally new ideas, usage paradigms, user experiences or similar.
I’ve said for almost a year or so no at work, where are all the pull requests? And I’m talking about using AI to assist in quality contributions to open source software (not slop), but nobody on my team seems to care about that. Instead we have 100 slop repos for every single already-solved problem just because we have so many tokens to throw at our problems. Please, make the world a better place
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited. Most people don't adopt new software very often, so it's not surprising that they aren't finding new great software now.
This is just plain wrong. I don't think the people asking for new software are in any way averse to adopting new software. I for one am actively waiting for new software to be released so I can adopt it, the Rad debugger for example. The first Linux beta-builds have been shipped and I can't wait for it to be in a more usable state.
I try new software all the time, not to mention I usually try the same software multiple times before reaching a final verdict. In the text-editor space I've been around Vim, Neovim, Doom Emacs, Spacemacs, Zed, Vs Code, Helix, Kakuone, all of them several times over before settling on Neovim.
I would love for more actual CAD-alternatives, more Photoshop alternatives, more video editors (shoutout to Blick) that all cover some niche. They don't even need to be full replacements!
But no. AI has not helped on this front in the slightest. If anything the bleeding edge (if you wish to call vibe-coded, half-assed clones that) is in its most broken state ever.
An example that’s giving me hope that there is indeed new and quality software: https://maestroscore.app
Music notation is hard and I for one am happy there’s a new kid in town, which takes after the now defunct Finale
"Good" is the, pardon the Claudism, load-bearing part of that question. There's a ton more software out there, but haters are just going to call it slop and not very good. So people stopped sharing their software. We're all scratching our own itch, making software for one, and then not announcing it to the world. Maybe a ShowHN that gets auto-killed.
It's not hard to force even the mid tier Chinese models to build a fast, easy to use, reasonably bug free app.
All you need to do is become a UX designer and complain about every small problem you see. That way any bad patterns leaves the repo fast and your agents will repeat the good ones. Pick frameworks with minimal boilerplate and good performance so you don't get lost in syntax noise or end up with Electron slop.
And always read code before you commit, that's the only thing that separates you from a stupid vibe coder.
AI coding is great but the distribution channels have been closed for a while. App stores are effectively closed for new apps and old internet is dead.
I'd have preferred 1 good answer to 9 speculative and poorly thought out answers.
I think AI is reshaping the industry but it's still far from the promised benefits. But the Silicon Valley hype machine isn't happy with "reshaping" because that's not enough to attract trillions. It needs to be "redefining the meaning of being a human" and garbage like that.
The reason we're not seeing a lot of good software is because the current AI tech can't (yet?) deliver that by itself as advertised.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
That is just an insult. With AI we are working more than ever, either because of "you should be faster now" or because half the people are getting layed-off ...
We write code faster. It's not getting merged faster because we usually find something janky.
Decisions aren't made faster.
Understanding doesn't come faster.
Code doesn't have value. A well working system has value, the bottleneck is now between having code and having a working system, rather than producing the code.
With AI you can write a new Harry Potter novel in under an hour. But if I ask you about the story you can only answer “It involves wizards”.
In pre-AI era you could solve a bug in one week. But you would end up having a detailed mental picture of the system, which requires time to be created. That mental investment helps you make better decisions on the system or solve related problems instantly.
Agreed. The recent Epic Games story (mass layoffs followed by the remaining staff being forced to use AI to crunch) is more in line with reality as I see it. I've been told by management to 'use AI' when I really need to hire.
Who are "we"? We have less (almost none) issues on Sentry, better measured performance, reduced server costs. At the end AI is just writing the same bytecode so you're not going to suddenly see software that didn't exist before.
It's an alpha phase. Why you people consider a project that is being actively developed for only couple of weeks a finished product? It's improving on a daily basis. Adobe and Microsoft had several decades. You're asking for the same in order of weeks? And for free? Is it me who is unreasonable here?
The point is you can't throw a product on the market and claim it's a replacement for everything else, with all the associated press around it. Because that's not what it is. The person prescribing what to do has absolutely no idea what all the end users actually want and need out of a product.
What it really shows is ego, arrogance and disdain for the users while running an AI cargo cult.
Everyone loves to hate Adobe because someone else does, but their products are actually pretty damn good.
And that is because they've had 30 years of effort thrown into them. It's not the big picture that's the issue, it's the thousands of small things. Stuff hidden in the menus that millions of people use. The corpus of educational material out there to help you get stuff done. And the flexibility which is really difficult to match. A good example is the ability for Lightroom to pull reasonable detail out of shadows from RAW images. No other product can touch that, not DxO/affinity/Photomator/Darktable/RAWtherapy.
LightCraft's exposure slider doesn't even work well. Blows everything out. No interpolation curve. It's just BAM!
They are good only if you never seen anything else. I don't know a single image editor worse than Photoshop. Adobe Acrobat and the associated format is a blight on human civilization that needed invention of fricking arificial mind to untangle. Illustrator had idiotic bugs that surely costed millions in misprints.
And remeber Flash? The software that Adobe bought and murdered becuse of their software development inaptitude? If it didn't end up in their hands it would be part of web standards by now and all of the human creativity that this software spawned wouldn't end up smashed into smitherines.
Adobe is cancer of user facing software. Always has been.
Adobe is a company that firmly squats in few very large niches of human activity and despite its mediocrity and awefulness starves any other software that dares to venture into them. It should have been broken by anti-monopoly laws 3 times by now.
I don't know how somebody can look at how much and in what manner they are charging their customers with cancelation fees and such and think that it's an evidence of providing great value and not that's it's a sign of clearly patgological grasp on the market that they have.
I will never forgive them killing Fireworks and Flash and developing Acrobat, Photoshop and Illustrator the way they did.
I haven't touched any of their stuff since content aware resize. I'm sure that they learned to polish their turds, because it's 2020's, everyone did. I'll be celebrating their ride down as more and more people start banging out simple tools with AI agents to make the edits they need instead of digging through tons of documentation and "educational" materials to find the one almost correct option at the bottom of nested menus of Adobe crapware.
> A good example is the ability for Lightroom to pull reasonable detail out of shadows from RAW images. No other product can touch that, not DxO/affinity/Photomator/Darktable/RAWtherapy.
> LightCraft's exposure slider doesn't even work well. Blows everything out. No interpolation curve. It's just BAM!
Do you know that an agent can build a simple Rust app for you that's going to be small, blazing fast and will implement for you the best 3 algorithm for that, straight from their respective papers and give you knobs for adjusting every parameter they have with any manner of precision?
Dude, have you seen Acrobat Reader "lately" - let's say, in the past 20 years or so? It's an unnecessary bloated and complicated product, nowadays slow as hell, and of course, the minute you open a PDF it starts with a compulsory "AI assistant" popup, whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately corporate IT doesn't care - they are not using it. On my own systems I've long switched to alternatives.
What is that alternative? How will they maintain and keep updates going, how will they add more features, how will they support non-technical customers, how will they offer cloud that a lot of customers are used to?
All of them cost money. They are ripping off Adobe to create the new Adobe.
The worst thing is that there are genuine legit open source projects that already offered an alternative but they did not need AI or ripping off Adobe as a marketing gimmick.
Vibecoded should not be an endorsement in 2026, it should be a warning.
All of them are listed as either "in development" or "early alpha", and every single person that has tried to do something even roughly resembling a task you would do with the original product can tell you that it's broken in a thousand ways.
As it stands right now, it proofs little more than it can replicate the post-boot screen of the original products.
Just because every tech news outlet was dumb enough to report it without trying it doesn't mean you have to join the echo chamber.
---
There are definitely examples out there that do use a similar relentlessly agentic development style that have produced great results. e.g. xberg[0] (formerly kreuzberg), is a great document content extractor, and in a relatively short amount of time has become one of the most robust and performant. I've reported about a dozen edge cases of documents of various types that were unextractable, and the maintainer (or their agents) were able to add a fix in maximum a day turnaround every time.
I vibe coded an ebook reader in Swift for iOS in an evening. I wanted something that stored my books and reads in a private s3 bucket, and gave me a simple interface for reading them. It syncs my books and reads across my devices. It only has the features I want, and I read in it every day.
If I posted it you would call it slop.
I made a cute little ESP32 flight radar for my desk. Two, actually, one for my wife. It shows the planes that fly over my house and has a little web interface I can use to set my position and a few other settings. It runs 24/7 and brings my joy to look at.
If I posted it you would call it slop.
I'm designing my first synthesizer / groovebox. It has 36 hall-effect keys and buttons, 7 rotary encoders, a beautiful monochrome blue OLED, audio and midi in and out, stereo microphones, SD sample streaming, and an audio engine that scales across multiple ESP32-S3 modules. I started the firmware by hand but quickly realized I could get everything I needed much faster with gentle prodding at Claude.
I've been working on it since January and have put hundreds and hundreds of hours into it. I'm finishing up rev 2 of the PCB and I hope to one day sell a few.
When I post it, you will call it slop.
People are learning to keep their projects to themselves, because the Internet is full of assholes. Look at the comments already on this post. A large group of people have decided that AI does not work, whether it works or not.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
I would not say that software on average is getting less buggy and more performant. I think the only big exception is being able to bruteforce-find security vulnerabilities and similar defects, which LLMs are well-suited to. But when you look at the remaining 95%+ of the software market, where everyone is seemingly all in on AI, all I see is software becoming more janky and less stable. Everyone just ignores it because it's faster for now.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of more and better features in existing products.
Maybe 'features' in terms of measure-turned-target metrics that management at software companies loves to use, but overall I'm not seeing an explosion of features that's inconsistent with the rate of improvement until today. And what new is here is more janky than ever before.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited.
Surely the people on a tech news website would know about this very useful AI-only software, even if they didn't start using it. It's funny how no one can even give some names.
> Many businesses' software-development processes have subsystems, especially political subsystems, that have not been accelerated with AI.
The entire industry is obsessed with AI, almost everyone is stripping out everything that's not AI and replacing it with AI. Doesn't seem plausible.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time.
How many people did you talk to recently that said they're spending less time working?
> AI improvements in software sometimes push us to use and make software less.
In what ways? AI, by allowing you not to understand the solution, can carry a doomed project much further than a regular programmer would before realizing their mistake. If instructed to, the AI will just build and build and build until the thing implodes under its own weight. It gives you less awareness of what you're doing.
All of these are unconvincing. I think only one of the points has merit:
> We're making more software instead of making software better.
I think people try to avoid acknowledging that AI may be much better at improving the speed side of the equation than the quality side. Look around - all you see is demands for more things faster, even if it's total garbage in the end. They didn't want to bother with quality already, now they found an excuse to try to forget about it altogether. If it's wrong, we'll just regenerate the same garbage 50 more times, they say. Focus on shipping something now, they say.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
Writing code is not the bottleneck anymore, making decisions is. Making the right decisions needs context and thinking. A coffee break might actually help productivity. Driving a Ferrari full speed in a crowded city - only because you can - doesn't make the outcome better.
I agree with you, but I'd say that writing code hasn't been the bottleneck in a lot of industries for quite some time.
Even in the 90s, the internet and the web dramatically lowered the costs of distribution, and YC itself was built on top of that (ViaWeb).
Then there has been so many frameworks, libraries, tools, services and APIs to pick and choose from that most of the coding work has been about organization, selling an idea and doing a lot of testing. Which are still unsolved problems.
The only new idea here is the idea that Software Developers are disposable.
This was brought by the same people who did RTO and layoffs post-covid, but now with support of non-tech workers who want a piece of that (supposedly) sweet money.
And yet the clueless fans swoon about how much faster they can spit out unmaintainable code now. There are a lot of people who will have to learn the hard way.
> A coffee break might actually help productivity
Always has done. Writing code was never the bottleneck.
Hammock-Driven Development: https://youtu.be/f84n5oFoZBc
I can't believe OP here. Where are these software teams, are they in the room with him? My teams are more stressed than ever: leadership doesn't understand why they aren't 5x more productive - even if they were 1.1x more productive, the ops teams aren't scaling, the defect management isn't scaling, the guy yelling about their Jira ticket status updates is just getting louder, and they are being pressured to reduce token spend while pressured to release more software.
Some motherfucker today suggested we should use Haiku for all coding tasks, and this guy is a Sr Director of real humans.
these always seem to be written in a vacuum, and certainly not in any mainline silicon valley startup or bigco for the past two years. everyone is stressed and no one is happy.
I think this is a bit misleading, it isn’t laziness.
I played with our AI and it found about 100 real but subtle issues in the codebase. Took less than 30 minutes to find what would have taken a sharp senior months.
I started reviewing the changes manually. They look pretty good but I want to understand each one. Some are design issues and our product needs weren’t spelled out to the AI.
I could blindly put all 100 up for review in half an hour or take a full week to scrutinize them.
So yeah, the process with AI is going to take 100x longer what it could have been.
It’s running locally on my machine. It’s the stuff that only I wanted for my particular needs. It’s the stuff that wouldn’t have been built otherwise because it wouldn’t have been worth the effort. I’m guessing this is true for a lot of people.
1. A frontend to MacOS Quicklook that gives me many additional playback controls.
2. A daemon that listens for messages on my LAN to add scheduled notifications to my preferred app launcher without cluttering my reminders.
3. An improved version of a tool I built to watch for specific streamers and capture the content compared to the one I created years ago. I wouldn’t have enhanced it beyond the version I had that was good enough.
4. A metadata inspector that I can invoke in the GUI with a hotkey focusing only on the stuff I’m interested in seeing.
5. A hotkey terminal launcher based on the color themes I have configured on my device so I can arrow through and choose in the moment.
etc, etc, etc…
Same here. I'm making more software than ever, for myself, and I'm finding it incredibly useful. But even though I've been a proud open-source software developer, I'm not releasing this new code because I don't see the value in it: I won't get the credit (because I "only" designed it, and didn't write the code), nor will anyone else use it, and if they did use it, I wouldn't want another maintenance burden for myself. So it stays private.
Same here. I do think people should release some of this personal software eventually though. But having some restrain and waiting until it has properly proved useful and matured a bit does everyone a favor IMO
Same. I've spent 20 years trying tool after tool and finding some part of it unfit, some stupid edge case for my broken brain. I have so much of my own crap now that I'm building new crap to manage the crap. If my professionally-sourced anxiety wasn't eating my stomach lining I'd be having a great time!
This part is one I have trouble understanding. Why bring on all this anxiety? I can't see an outcome for all this vibecoding except one that involves crashing and burning.
I saw many comments here saying SaaS is dead, for example. That any service can now be vibecoded and replicated internally. And I can't help but think if they've ever tried running, supporting and maintaining a piece of software. The code was never the hardest part. Not even close. In fact, cheap "coding" has been a thing for over 25 years now if that's what you wanted.
To me this feels like saying everyone can be a carpenter now because it's so cheap and easy to just buy a hammer and some nails and go at it.
I do think it's great to hear that people can now vibecode their own custom fit tools that work exactly the way they want them to. But that process is not free.
Same. I make a lot of stuff to stratch hyper-personal itches or replace paid software with a narrow solution for my use case, running on my own devices or my home server. I don't post most of it online because I figure anyone else with the same need can generate their own custom solution.
I've also "soft forked" a small handful of the programs I use the most, having code agents maintain my patches on top. Very liberating.
Yeah same, getting hyper personal tooling for myself.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of more and better features in existing products.
After reading these two points, I had to scroll down to see if it was the opening of some elaborate joke, because I'm seeing more bugs, worse performance, and less and worse features.
If we released software with the number of defects in the popular coding tools, we'd be out of business before the end of the year. But they persist- for some verticals speed matters over quality.
Wait--it wasn't a joke..?
I personally made a bunch of net new, really good software that I use myself and that is much better than alternatives. You will not see that software though, because:
1. Marketing (and distribution) of said software is a chore, and doesn't really give me any benefits 2. It's tailored to me rather than to average Joe.
Same here. I have now the best tools I’ve ever had just because I made them tailored to me and my exact nitpicks. Advertising them now would just be creating more noise on the internet.
Same here, and I don't need to hear all kinds of complaining like it's some sort of AI version of a Monty Python skit:
Wife: Have you got anything without slop?
Waitress: Well, there's slop egg sausage and slop, that's not got much slop in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY slop!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon slop and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got slop in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much slop in it as slop egg sausage and slop, has it?
Same here. I'm a bioinformatician, and most of the software I'd have historically been expected to use was cobbled together by biologists then left to rot once the accompanying white paper was published.
I've been able to create my own tooling that beats out the preexisting best across every metric. It's incredible.
Also you have to deal with the awful creatures that live in bluesky.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49539919
I built myself a full walkabe 3D plan of my house for my renovation project over the weekend, complete with path tracing renderer, different drawing styles, furniture arrangements and accurate models of different windows styles that I consider ordering, all based on actual blueprints and materials. I looked for usable software for that before but everything was either commercial garbage that wanted you to pony up a lot of money beforehand or hard to use manually. With AI I can build stuff like that over a weekend and I can tell it to place stuff and design things in text and using photos and 3D scans, it takes care of actual implementation. That's much better than spending days or weeks with locked down software trying to make it do what I want.
So maybe the big revolution is that we won't have "big software" that tries to cater to all kinds of users but "small software" that is tailored perfectly to the needs of a single user.
I think a lot of us are trying really hard here to avoid the simplest and most obvious answer, which is that AI coding software is helpful, but doesn't deliver the kind of productivity gains boosters are talking about.
There's a bunch of reasons for this, but the obvious one to me is just that I haven't seen any backed up claims that actually break down how a 10x (or similar) speed up would get delivered in practice.
For the sake of an example, let's imagine an engineer who works an 8 hour day split up like this:
- 2 hours: investigating and debugging potential issues
- 1 hour: reviewing code
- 2 hours: in various team meetings, catch ups or otherwise
- 1 hour: designing (including at a level of writing code for prototyping etc)
- 2 hours: actually writing code
I think that's a semi-reasonable day breakdown. Realistically, I think AI helps debug faster, and generate code faster. Possibly design work too, but I think this isn't really the case since AI workflows necessitate a lot more design work in order to make the AI generation deterministic.
So looking at that day, if I was able to fully automate writing code and debugging issues so that it took 0 time at all (which I think is a very optimistic assessment of the actual speed ups AI provides), we're looking at a 2x speed up of an engineers productivity.
If we think AI makes those things twice as fast (so 2 hours, instead of 4) the engineer is now at a 1.25x speed up. That's great, but it's hardly revolutionary. It'll change your output something like the way going from a team of 4 to a team of 5 might do.
This is obviously complete conjecture and I'm sure the average time engineers spend on things is different, but I think there's an obvious take away. If you want to make claims about the performance impact of code, you need to know where the code spends its time, and what impact you're making on those sections of code.
Similarly, if you want to know what performance gains are being made, you need to know what engineers spend their time doing and what impact AI is having of those tasks.
I've seen very little attempt to actually make realistic claims on that basis, and a lot of vibes-based "wooah, AI makes me so much faster" type claims. Those claims are obviously not nothing, but I wouldn't trust people's gut reactions to make serious claims about the overall productivity changes in our entire industry.
You've also skipped the 1 hour reviewing code becoming 2-3 hours, or even more.
Yeah that's so true! I thought that as I was writing, but figured it proved my point more that even with a really charitable interpretation, it's hard to make he case for a 10x speed up at a high level.
I remember this being one of the first things I had to learn in my first "real" job. Like someone literally had to tell me there's not much of a difference between coding six hours in a day and one. Later on I learned there's just a class of tasks that just take time for your unconscious brain to break it down to understand it. Algorithms are like this. A lot of things that have unintuitive physical components are like this, e.g. bending on harmonica. Some things you just have to show up every day, give it your best effort and then something will click. Programming is like that.
I think there's a type of company for whom this works; a small team really can deliver a massive volume, but it cannot be constrained by your typical software bigco superstructure. Ops/Readiness/Process Engineering/Enterprise Arch/Risk etc, entrenched concerns with soft power through pure delivery friction.
You need to be an an org who is able to deliver directly to your consumer, who needs to be defect-tolerant with the expectation of quick iteration. That customer will have access to advanced tools that its competition is unwilling to adopt. Many will fail.
There are many verticals for which this does not work at all - but this is unlikely to be the permanent state. The new model will work its way through the market, and companies will fall as fast-moving competitors find a willing customer segment they can target, make that segment out-compete the others using their access to tools with superior abilities but higher defect rates. The customer base will eventually adopt, having become accustomed to this, and so slowly expectations will change, and so will our field.
I for one welcome our slop overlords.
Well we're starting to see game mashups and photoshop clones. So, the effects are becoming more outwardly visible.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
I would like to see some of this software improvement in the form of fewer bugs. If anything it's adding more bugs.
I'll give an example from a game I like called ARC Raiders. For the first ~9 months they did not fix any of the bugs in the main menu. The damn main menu! The first thing you see when you load the game! They also failed to fix, in that time, the bug where simply pressing the Xbox button on the controller would break in-game voice chat.
They only just solved that, as of a few days ago. The main menu bugs still exist.
Dealing with third-party overlays (I presume that's the main menu bug you're talking about) is one of the most annoying things in game development due to how it hooks into the rendering pipeline and not an easy fix.
None of it good by any definition of the word
If the photocraft suite had been manually written in 2022, with the exact same source code as it has right now, they would be the poster open-source project that people would point to for the power of an open-source community over proprietary software and be praised for the high standards of the source code.
photopea existed in 2022 and is better than this current slop suite
Yeah, the Photocraft (or whatever that photoshop clone name is, naming everything *craft just blends the names together in my head) program, for example, is way too slow in WASM to be usable, I think it ran on a single thread without using Worker and basic optimization features like that.
Just because you can throw tens of thousands of dollars at frontier LLMs doesn't mean what they write would be good, you still need to have some oversight for their work.
expecting it to work well in wasm seems a bit too high of a bar.
It works relatively well in native mode as a standalone app (tho not being an actual photoshop expert, i dont know if the features compete properly, i simply hear that those trying it are impressed).
The excel clone works well enough for me to do taxes on, even tho the look and feel is a bit janky. I would stick with google sheets, but it's a usable replacement if i didnt already have sheets.
Sure, but we weren't really seeing that at all. At least, not to that scale or degree at that speed right?
I'm seeing people vibe-code inference engines for custom hardware/models too. Are they good? That remains to be seen, but I didn't used to see this at all.
It does feel like something has changed to me lately. I expect it's only going to accelerate, and the quality only going to increase.
Usually it starts like this.
The problem with that is that it implicitly assumes things will progress in the way we're used to.
AI written software doing the exact thing it was supposed to but breaking apart on any further improvements or changes matches what I've seen from AI generated output. The code is often bloated and fragile.
Most actual software written using "Agile" methods is also supposed to be fragile (unless an actual good engineer is steering it)
Maybe in 2 years the only jobs devs can get anymore is working for Frontier Labs to build training data / RL environments to improve performance on this task. Who knows? In the limit it seems like a solvable problem...
Some people are just hard to please. This is awesome
The question was about good software. Those photoshop clones won't even let you get basic work done.
E.g even the comments are not working properly in the PDF reader from some unnamed related suite
What? Normal people are going to edit a photo and "spin up a photoshop clone" every time. /s
https://x.com/levelsio/status/2109288526726549822
That's just the goalpost moving exponentially fast.
Not new software.
If it wasn't there before it's new. In some sense.
"Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)"
This is not what I am hearing from people who work in LLM heavy environments at all. The exact opposite seems to be the case.
Yea, this sounds like it was written by some mid/high level manager with no idea at all how the sausage is made
Almost all of the trending repos on GitHub are _about_ AI: zillion of harnesses and similar AI orchestration tools. So most of the extra efficiency gained by AI usage seems to be spent on building more AI tools and not software for end users or libraries for AIs and humans to build such software.
Developers have never seen a process they didn't fantasize about automating. You see so many of these tools because it's a completely new space, fertile ground, and developers want to automate even more of the development flow so they can spend more time deciding what to build instead of shepherding along a gaggle of agents.
It's all being built to try and capture the value of creating the new, good software. Aka a cambrian explosion of developer tools - primarily used to create developer tools and twitter attention - so people use your developer tool to create developer tools. And wikis - thanks to Karpathy, we now measure Obsidian clones by the gross.
In my professional life however, we are NOT producing more software ($bigco). We are on the edge of it maybe. My experience is we've been on the razors edge - just enough staff to meet the business needs - and so every AI iteration sped up some process, which exposed some limit in a dependent process, which we tried to free up with a reorg, which cut capacity somewhere else, and the snake eats its tail. We've had enough iterations to get to a place where an increase in developer output probably won't cause the whole thing to fall over. I hope.
But anyway, I spend a lot of time exploring new dev tools, it's sort of a hobby of mine; I like to understand the state of "what's out there" and this has helped me professionally. This has recently become impossible do the sheer mass of llm productivity, while at the same time more fun than ever; the amount of crazy interesting and seemingly mature brand-new things (in the dev space) has astounded me. I found Swamp Club recently, like wtf where did this come from? It's like five dudes with LLMs.
Coding is only one part of software. There is resourcing, financing, research, planning, design, development, testing, distribution, training and support.
AI is a search engine. A good one, better than what was before that. (Which is not saying much, because the search landscape is severely distorted. For example, searching dispropotionately dominates browsing.) It can speed up searching and exploration. This is the natural limit of possible gains.
I thought that for a while, but it does things that go beyond what I can call search. (Search is an elastic term, but not infinitely so.)
For example, it's extraordinarily good at applying the searched-for information (once found) to a specific problem at hand—at least at the first-order level of putting existing pieces together in a correct way. It can do that much faster than I can, with far greater command of detail.
It can also find problems and correct them in my own work in a way that still amazes me. Again, not deep problems—they're first-order in the sense of being obvious deviations from correct practice - but to call this 'search' feels like a stretch. It's not searching for bugs in the code I just wrote and then returning a corrected version, as if one had been sitting somewhere waiting to be found.
Plenty of people insist it goes far beyond these types of things, and they're probably right—I'm not going to say they aren't, since I've been wrong enough times already. My point is that even these first-order things are enough, for me, to refute the it's-just-search view. It does things with search results that in the past, I would have had to do.
The underlying mechanism of that is still search. We do have similar mechanism; we can notice it in dreaming, delirium, "word salad" disorder and so on. It will generate formally "new" things and they will look convincingly normal, especially if our defences are down, as in sleep.
I am not sure what the current state of models is, but as far as I know lifting a limit on the model output length tends to noticeably degrade the quality of the result so that it starts to show the same delirious tones.
Fundamentally it is recalling of past experience, a reaction. In many ways it is an opposite of acquiring true new knowledge. We keep that mechanism in check using other human qualities models do not have.
Working with LLM is basically like hiring a madman. It can do useful work, but you cannot trust it. To be economically viable the verification cycle has to be cheap or the cost of an error must be small. Searching a library or doing a home project are fine. But these aren't the lucrative markets investors are dreaming of.
The quality of software we are creating at my day job has risen. Tests where there were never tests before, all new code has tests, it's all more rigorously reviewed, and we find prod bugs faster with the help of agents.
My own company has shipped a slew of features that were going to die in the backlog, tracked down almost every bug that comes through Sentry, and given me time to focus on bigger things (it's a 1-person company).
For myself, home automations that I was never going to spend the time getting "just right", I've replaced MyFitnessPal with an app I built, I've got more self-hosted projects running than ever before, and I've built websites and apps to scratch mine or my families needs that were never going to get built in the past.
When I run into an annoyance on my computer(s) now I don't just put up with it, I send an agent after it to figure out why it happened, how we can stop it from happening again, and/or if we can write some custom software to make the problem better or go away. It feels magical.
None of that is new though. Slop clones don't count
> None of that is new though
Pedantic much? It's new to me, it's new to the people using it. What's ever truly "new" then?
> Slop clones
This is getting boring. Many of us are creating custom software that scratch our particular (and sometimes others') itch. You can call it slop or whatever derisively term you want, it doesn't change the reality. Before I didn't have an app that did what I wanted, the way I wanted, now I do.
new software is software that does something any existing app or combination of apps does not do.
I'm pretty ambivalent about AI, but...
Even if some bloated, expensive software that may have contained those functions already exists, bespoke software that does exactly what I want, and only what I want, in the way I want, is still "new" in my opinion.
[flagged]
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks
Straight up untrue anecdotally and by general sentiment in the industry.
My suspicion is that software is saturated. Everything that people need (and a lot more that people do not need) has been built already.
I have never once worked on a SaaS product where it felt like there wasn’t an infinite universe of things to build, simplify, improve, or change.
In my experience, SaaS products almost all exist to externalise something that folks were doing in-house before. Its rare that a SaaS springs up to do something truly new
I think that's mainly true. Of course, there are specialized applications necessary to connect the data of one program to another or some fringe cases but by and large new software isn't really needed. A lot of it is coded because of an arms race (hackers vs. security) or to take advantage of people (more ways to make them spend money).
Most new tech is just shit.
Yep https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-project-of-software...
Yes, but not in the exact, specific, bespoke way that people need it.
lol go visit the 5 nearest local businesses near you and see what they use to run things.
Exactly. And they are in business. Usually they also don't fail because of SW related reasons.
It's on my computer. It has one user and it was never intended to have more. So basically answer 6 on the list.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
This might be the biggest factor in my opinion. Corporate incentives usually don't reward someone delivering 2x-10x, so an employee who suddenly found a way to multiply their productivity might be keeping that method to themselves and freeing up some time instead.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
I am yet to see the advancements in AI manifest in more leisure-time. It is simply that the amount of work we're expected to be able to pump out has increased, and the actual programming work is no longer what slows us down.
Article didn't really explain where this new, good software is :D
Marketing new software is impossibly hard.
I have multiple open-source projects and 2 commercial offerings (see: https://race-term.com, https://inboxctl.com and https://github.com/exlee).
With RACE (which is great I use it daily) I have maybe 30 users. With Inboxctl there are (I think) 2 except me.
Recently I figured that there's no reason to work on open source because it's going to be a vaporware even if I set up the whole architecture. With paid software I might (at least) get paid for my time.
But long story short: there are no channels to share/market/show people. HN is hit or miss (most often miss).
Is it good software? Yes. I'm in this industry for more than 2 decades and it ticks all the boxes for "good software". But all the channels where you could meet it are dead waters.
There are cases where good old software never had their chance, such as Ted Nelsons Xanadu hypertext. It was mostly built, but when the programmers left, the algorithms were a huge barrier for new devs. Now LLMs can help new programmers to understand complex code bases and bring them back to life.
The software I create for myself has improved a lot. I also see a lot of improvements in current software and games and fast iterations. But nothing new that is revolutionary.
This is just speculation with zero facts. Anyone can come up with those explanations; the interesting part would be to either prove or disprove them.
1. Entrenched in-company interests create friction by just existing - Ops/Risk/Support/Arch/ProcessEng. Staffing is on the knifes edge, no buffer. And so going fast $here makes you slow $there. 2. Customers expect defect-free software, and compromising quality == churn == revenue loss. 3. Token costs are already astronomical, and everyone who could already cut headcount. 4. Mythos scared the shit out of everyone, and every last cent is allocated to Enterprise Risk (another entrenched friction).
It’s a lose/lose proposition for every software company with more than three management layers. We're frozen in place.
Here's my simple theory. Increasing the level of quality is not rewarded and often actively discouraged. Almost all software is stuck at the "barely tolerable minimum level of quality". The quality level remains constant (or goes down) regardless of any productivity gain. Any and all productivity gain is spent for expanding scope, chasing more features, etc... Volume of work is increased so that the development team is perpetually understaffed. I have never once seen a team that had what you could remotely call a healthy or appropriate level of staffing. It has always been "the absolute minimum we can possibly get away with and never more". This leaves zero room for any kind of maintenance or quality improvement. Every day is a fight just to keep the lights on. I have seen people queitly sneaking-in maintenance work because that was the only way it could be done.
Yea, that's because 80% of the work is getting to that level of quality and even most human devs struggle to get there, even with the necessary resources. So using a LLM which is trained on the absolutely average corpus of code produces the same level of average. Getting to that noticeable level of quality is difficult and time consuming and LLMs do not help you get there. But much like everyone thinks their baby is beautiful, they think the code they create is the same. And most of the time it isn't. Sorry about that but if quality was common, it wouldn't be called quality.
Okay I’ll bite.
Thanks to AI, I was able to finish my bookkeeping and accounting app I had been working on years ago. https://financica.app
It’s not just “vibe coded”, it’s really damn good. Because thanks to AI, whenever I spot an issue, a quality of life increase etc I can just immediately implement it rather than have it seat in a perpetually growing backlog of “maybe one day”.
And there’s SO MANY standards to comply with especially in Europe and I just … implemented all of them. It’s more full featured than any of its competitors.
It runs the bookkeeping and accounting for all of my own companies plus plenty of customers. And the funny thing is for me, this is pretty much a side project. I just have people helping on sales, but all the development is me.
> I can just immediately implement it rather than have it seat in a perpetually growing backlog of “maybe one day”.
My backlog for my side-project/business had a number of things in it that were frankly never going to happen. They only existed in the backlog so I could say they were in the backlog and add a note about who expressed interest in it so that, if it reached a critical mass, I could justify dedicating the time. That backlog is largely empty now. Things I thought were a pipedream or a "well, maybe one day if this gets bigger" became a reality.
The "We're making more software instead of making software better" and "Most people don't adopt new software very often" points hits home.
But more importantly, why should the market accept your software? Since plenty of people are "making more software" cause they are trying to "make software better" while creating similar product with the use of AI, its difficult for the market to choose which software actually solves their problem.
On the other hand, many don't accept or adopt new software as they don't see the problem they are facing, or they don't mind the problem itself. So why bother adopting new software that isn't going to pluck the problem by the roots all together with its' use?
It doesn't really matter if we are making better software now, in the end, we know it will be better. Think of it like this: you have a very sick patient, and you prescribe a drug/protocol known to make them worse before they get better. So the intermediate step is not informative in any meaningful sense.
Human coders usually ask this question in a malicious way to imply that this technology doesn't just have to be faster than humans (which it is), it also has to produce better code (which it usually does) as cohesive product (so fixing features or refactoring in projects/products do not count) in record time (this is the trap because these models are not even a year old in their current advanced format). It's hopeless.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
Anecdotally, completely disagree. Maybe this is nostalgia, but I perceive a distinct and massive drop in software quality over the past few years.
Worst offenders for me are the poster children for LLM-based development. I run into bugs and performance issues with both Claude and Codex literally every day. I don't think I'm an outlier here, either.
I can see both:
- more bugs becoming visible that were hidden within the software we use daily
- more bugs (in absolute terms) as more people create more software in a very short amount of time (regardless of their professional training)
- less bugs in existing software as the developers and dev orgs of existing projects is capable of automating bug hunting, test case creation, ... in essence: They get a multiplying effect out of AI regarding their capabilities.
In short: Actual developers with actual experience (the more, the merrier) can do better work while the barrier to enter "the market" for untrained individuals is a lot lower resulting in a huge amount of new software whose "success" is to be determined.
> - less bugs in existing software as the developers and dev orgs of existing projects is capable of automating bug hunting, test case creation, ... in essence: They get a multiplying effect out of AI regarding their capabilities.
I'm not convinced there are more than a handful of orgs in the world who are disciplined enough to achieve this. Or organisationally willing to increase their QA Eng headcount sufficiently to achieve it.
There are so many stupid little bugs in software these days that should be straightforward to fix, but just aren't fixed. Visual quirks and rendering issues. Notification bells that don't clear properly. Formatting problems. And vibecoded apps like Claude Code themselves are the biggest perpetrators.
To add some related evidence to that, I browsed this report[1] for other reasons the other day, but it stood out to me that _100%_ of Forbes Global 2000 tech leaders said "their organization has experienced some form of AI-related downtime".
[1] https://itbranschen.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/the-hidde...
Dev being reckless with LLMs are going to ship faster than the one using it responsibly to improve quality, so it would make sense to first see a drop in quality before things improve.
AI firm code are likely a different category though.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
If the leadership (C-suite) is afraid to take the full responsibility over AI output, then the only rational choice for developers is to "pace the frontier" themselves.
I think this has to do with human bandwidth. We are required to read and reason about all generated code, but there is limit how much can each person process in a day.
If there are skills, design MCPs, automatic testing and evaluation, feature bug monitoring, security monitoring, crash handling and automatic fixes, then we could see the productivity in teams. But now it is still our responsibility and not responsibility of the system.
Move fast and don't break things.
> output, then the only rational choice for developers is to "pace the frontier" themselves.
And then the C-suite fires them and replaces with ones who are not pacing it. It must come from the high level.
Oh look, this post is explaining the reason for another article.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50065892
Nice one...
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-project-of-software... there's no (non-ai) software left to make.
What about a free and open source version of Photoshop?
There's more of the stuff that's well known and understood. Any software with an ecosystem of integrations and connectors added a lot of connectors lately. CRMs, CMS and similar extended their functionality.
What we've seen very little of is fundamentally new ideas, usage paradigms, user experiences or similar.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-project-of-software...
Because you still need human to review all the slops, which puts the cart before the horse.
> AI is replacing more durable, longer-lasting software with more ephemeral forms of software or software use
What I thought all along: the fast-food era of software has come.
I’ve said for almost a year or so no at work, where are all the pull requests? And I’m talking about using AI to assist in quality contributions to open source software (not slop), but nobody on my team seems to care about that. Instead we have 100 slop repos for every single already-solved problem just because we have so many tokens to throw at our problems. Please, make the world a better place
You cannot make someone believe something that they choose not to believe.
Its so weird I spend every day AI coding, thinking I'm building software, and at the end of the day, strangely, nothing was built at all.
The next day the same thing happens.
Here's the part nobody tells you: I think this guy is right - AI is building nothing at all.
BUT if you want to see what people are building, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/ where there is roughly 355 project announcements per day.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited. Most people don't adopt new software very often, so it's not surprising that they aren't finding new great software now.
This is just plain wrong. I don't think the people asking for new software are in any way averse to adopting new software. I for one am actively waiting for new software to be released so I can adopt it, the Rad debugger for example. The first Linux beta-builds have been shipped and I can't wait for it to be in a more usable state.
I try new software all the time, not to mention I usually try the same software multiple times before reaching a final verdict. In the text-editor space I've been around Vim, Neovim, Doom Emacs, Spacemacs, Zed, Vs Code, Helix, Kakuone, all of them several times over before settling on Neovim.
I would love for more actual CAD-alternatives, more Photoshop alternatives, more video editors (shoutout to Blick) that all cover some niche. They don't even need to be full replacements!
But no. AI has not helped on this front in the slightest. If anything the bleeding edge (if you wish to call vibe-coded, half-assed clones that) is in its most broken state ever.
An example that’s giving me hope that there is indeed new and quality software: https://maestroscore.app Music notation is hard and I for one am happy there’s a new kid in town, which takes after the now defunct Finale
First non ai thing I've seen in this thread that's actually new
"Good" is the, pardon the Claudism, load-bearing part of that question. There's a ton more software out there, but haters are just going to call it slop and not very good. So people stopped sharing their software. We're all scratching our own itch, making software for one, and then not announcing it to the world. Maybe a ShowHN that gets auto-killed.
> these are conjectural, candidate answers
Point Jev at them, then!
It's not hard to force even the mid tier Chinese models to build a fast, easy to use, reasonably bug free app.
All you need to do is become a UX designer and complain about every small problem you see. That way any bad patterns leaves the repo fast and your agents will repeat the good ones. Pick frameworks with minimal boilerplate and good performance so you don't get lost in syntax noise or end up with Electron slop.
And always read code before you commit, that's the only thing that separates you from a stupid vibe coder.
AI coding is great but the distribution channels have been closed for a while. App stores are effectively closed for new apps and old internet is dead.
I'd have preferred 1 good answer to 9 speculative and poorly thought out answers.
I think AI is reshaping the industry but it's still far from the promised benefits. But the Silicon Valley hype machine isn't happy with "reshaping" because that's not enough to attract trillions. It needs to be "redefining the meaning of being a human" and garbage like that.
The reason we're not seeing a lot of good software is because the current AI tech can't (yet?) deliver that by itself as advertised.
I don't buy that. We see nothing.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time. (To greatly simplify: software teams are offering 2x speedups to their companies. They're then using tools that allow them to work 10x as efficiently, and taking nice long coffee breaks.)
That is just an insult. With AI we are working more than ever, either because of "you should be faster now" or because half the people are getting layed-off ...
I have no clue where the author is working but...
We've lost 75% of the team over the last year.
We write code faster. It's not getting merged faster because we usually find something janky.
Decisions aren't made faster.
Understanding doesn't come faster.
Code doesn't have value. A well working system has value, the bottleneck is now between having code and having a working system, rather than producing the code.
> Understanding doesn't come faster.
With AI you can write a new Harry Potter novel in under an hour. But if I ask you about the story you can only answer “It involves wizards”.
In pre-AI era you could solve a bug in one week. But you would end up having a detailed mental picture of the system, which requires time to be created. That mental investment helps you make better decisions on the system or solve related problems instantly.
Agreed. The recent Epic Games story (mass layoffs followed by the remaining staff being forced to use AI to crunch) is more in line with reality as I see it. I've been told by management to 'use AI' when I really need to hire.
Who are "we"? We have less (almost none) issues on Sentry, better measured performance, reduced server costs. At the end AI is just writing the same bytecode so you're not going to suddenly see software that didn't exist before.
> We see nothing.
Clear your glasses. For example - https://getartcraft.com/apps Thanks to those people we may soon have great alternatives to monopolies.
Have you tried one? They are like gargling dog shit.
Adobe is cheap compared to that miserable experience.
It's an alpha phase. Why you people consider a project that is being actively developed for only couple of weeks a finished product? It's improving on a daily basis. Adobe and Microsoft had several decades. You're asking for the same in order of weeks? And for free? Is it me who is unreasonable here?
The point is you can't throw a product on the market and claim it's a replacement for everything else, with all the associated press around it. Because that's not what it is. The person prescribing what to do has absolutely no idea what all the end users actually want and need out of a product.
What it really shows is ego, arrogance and disdain for the users while running an AI cargo cult.
Let's continue that a year from now.
[dead]
I don't see where they claim that it's a replacement for everything.
> What it really shows is ego, arrogance and disdain for the users while running an AI cargo cult.
It seems you have unreasonable expectations of a new piece of software because you don't like people who use AI.
> They are like gargling dog shit.
Sounds exactly like every Adobe product ever. I guess they went too far on feature parity.
Everyone loves to hate Adobe because someone else does, but their products are actually pretty damn good.
And that is because they've had 30 years of effort thrown into them. It's not the big picture that's the issue, it's the thousands of small things. Stuff hidden in the menus that millions of people use. The corpus of educational material out there to help you get stuff done. And the flexibility which is really difficult to match. A good example is the ability for Lightroom to pull reasonable detail out of shadows from RAW images. No other product can touch that, not DxO/affinity/Photomator/Darktable/RAWtherapy.
LightCraft's exposure slider doesn't even work well. Blows everything out. No interpolation curve. It's just BAM!
They are good only if you never seen anything else. I don't know a single image editor worse than Photoshop. Adobe Acrobat and the associated format is a blight on human civilization that needed invention of fricking arificial mind to untangle. Illustrator had idiotic bugs that surely costed millions in misprints.
And remeber Flash? The software that Adobe bought and murdered becuse of their software development inaptitude? If it didn't end up in their hands it would be part of web standards by now and all of the human creativity that this software spawned wouldn't end up smashed into smitherines.
Adobe is cancer of user facing software. Always has been.
Adobe is a company that firmly squats in few very large niches of human activity and despite its mediocrity and awefulness starves any other software that dares to venture into them. It should have been broken by anti-monopoly laws 3 times by now.
I don't know how somebody can look at how much and in what manner they are charging their customers with cancelation fees and such and think that it's an evidence of providing great value and not that's it's a sign of clearly patgological grasp on the market that they have.
I will never forgive them killing Fireworks and Flash and developing Acrobat, Photoshop and Illustrator the way they did.
I haven't touched any of their stuff since content aware resize. I'm sure that they learned to polish their turds, because it's 2020's, everyone did. I'll be celebrating their ride down as more and more people start banging out simple tools with AI agents to make the edits they need instead of digging through tons of documentation and "educational" materials to find the one almost correct option at the bottom of nested menus of Adobe crapware.
> A good example is the ability for Lightroom to pull reasonable detail out of shadows from RAW images. No other product can touch that, not DxO/affinity/Photomator/Darktable/RAWtherapy.
> LightCraft's exposure slider doesn't even work well. Blows everything out. No interpolation curve. It's just BAM!
Do you know that an agent can build a simple Rust app for you that's going to be small, blazing fast and will implement for you the best 3 algorithm for that, straight from their respective papers and give you knobs for adjusting every parameter they have with any manner of precision?
Dude, have you seen Acrobat Reader "lately" - let's say, in the past 20 years or so? It's an unnecessary bloated and complicated product, nowadays slow as hell, and of course, the minute you open a PDF it starts with a compulsory "AI assistant" popup, whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately corporate IT doesn't care - they are not using it. On my own systems I've long switched to alternatives.
Absolute tosh, sorry.
I don't like the Creative Cloud suite that much (FWIW I prefer Affinity, A.R.T., DxO PhotoLab, CaptureOne, any real alternative).
But Adobe's apps are pretty solidly reliable, if uninspiring in places (Affinity's layer model is better for example).
What is that alternative? How will they maintain and keep updates going, how will they add more features, how will they support non-technical customers, how will they offer cloud that a lot of customers are used to?
All of them cost money. They are ripping off Adobe to create the new Adobe.
The worst thing is that there are genuine legit open source projects that already offered an alternative but they did not need AI or ripping off Adobe as a marketing gimmick.
Vibecoded should not be an endorsement in 2026, it should be a warning.
All of them are listed as either "in development" or "early alpha", and every single person that has tried to do something even roughly resembling a task you would do with the original product can tell you that it's broken in a thousand ways.
As it stands right now, it proofs little more than it can replicate the post-boot screen of the original products.
Just because every tech news outlet was dumb enough to report it without trying it doesn't mean you have to join the echo chamber.
---
There are definitely examples out there that do use a similar relentlessly agentic development style that have produced great results. e.g. xberg[0] (formerly kreuzberg), is a great document content extractor, and in a relatively short amount of time has become one of the most robust and performant. I've reported about a dozen edge cases of documents of various types that were unextractable, and the maintainer (or their agents) were able to add a fix in maximum a day turnaround every time.
[0]: https://github.com/xberg-io/xberg
Slop clones of Adobe's apps doesn't feel "great" to me.
Moral compass/integrity stuff. Can't explain why, it just feels like absolutely the wrong direction to be heading in.
I vibe coded an ebook reader in Swift for iOS in an evening. I wanted something that stored my books and reads in a private s3 bucket, and gave me a simple interface for reading them. It syncs my books and reads across my devices. It only has the features I want, and I read in it every day.
If I posted it you would call it slop.
I made a cute little ESP32 flight radar for my desk. Two, actually, one for my wife. It shows the planes that fly over my house and has a little web interface I can use to set my position and a few other settings. It runs 24/7 and brings my joy to look at.
If I posted it you would call it slop.
I'm designing my first synthesizer / groovebox. It has 36 hall-effect keys and buttons, 7 rotary encoders, a beautiful monochrome blue OLED, audio and midi in and out, stereo microphones, SD sample streaming, and an audio engine that scales across multiple ESP32-S3 modules. I started the firmware by hand but quickly realized I could get everything I needed much faster with gentle prodding at Claude.
I've been working on it since January and have put hundreds and hundreds of hours into it. I'm finishing up rev 2 of the PCB and I hope to one day sell a few.
When I post it, you will call it slop.
People are learning to keep their projects to themselves, because the Internet is full of assholes. Look at the comments already on this post. A large group of people have decided that AI does not work, whether it works or not.
Proof that ai slop shaming works :)
Asshole.
> Here are some answers. As usual in this style of post, these are conjectural, candidate answers, and I would give some of them little weight
..
> Again, some of these are speculative and some should be given little weight.
You can drop this right off the top of HN when the OP blatantly acknowledges that their entire post is BS.
“Oh, you can’t critique me, I said these were just speculative…”
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.
I would not say that software on average is getting less buggy and more performant. I think the only big exception is being able to bruteforce-find security vulnerabilities and similar defects, which LLMs are well-suited to. But when you look at the remaining 95%+ of the software market, where everyone is seemingly all in on AI, all I see is software becoming more janky and less stable. Everyone just ignores it because it's faster for now.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of more and better features in existing products.
Maybe 'features' in terms of measure-turned-target metrics that management at software companies loves to use, but overall I'm not seeing an explosion of features that's inconsistent with the rate of improvement until today. And what new is here is more janky than ever before.
> We are in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited.
Surely the people on a tech news website would know about this very useful AI-only software, even if they didn't start using it. It's funny how no one can even give some names.
> Many businesses' software-development processes have subsystems, especially political subsystems, that have not been accelerated with AI.
The entire industry is obsessed with AI, almost everyone is stripping out everything that's not AI and replacing it with AI. Doesn't seem plausible.
> Software teams are capturing a lot of the speedup in the form of more leisure or quasi-leisure time.
How many people did you talk to recently that said they're spending less time working?
> AI improvements in software sometimes push us to use and make software less.
In what ways? AI, by allowing you not to understand the solution, can carry a doomed project much further than a regular programmer would before realizing their mistake. If instructed to, the AI will just build and build and build until the thing implodes under its own weight. It gives you less awareness of what you're doing.
All of these are unconvincing. I think only one of the points has merit:
> We're making more software instead of making software better.
I think people try to avoid acknowledging that AI may be much better at improving the speed side of the equation than the quality side. Look around - all you see is demands for more things faster, even if it's total garbage in the end. They didn't want to bother with quality already, now they found an excuse to try to forget about it altogether. If it's wrong, we'll just regenerate the same garbage 50 more times, they say. Focus on shipping something now, they say.
If it even exists at all, it gets drowned in the sea of shit anyway.
- nah, wake me up when AI can cook windows 12 that runs 10 times faster than windows 11 with 0 bloat
- or make a microsoft office suit that does the same in performance
- or take any game's exe file and add coop to it . I drag and drop COD black ops and I get 2 person coop mode added to the exe instantly
- wake me up when one of your frontier models are capable of pulling this kinda feat
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]