Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #16913 > unrolled thread

Programming in the age of AI

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Programming in the age of AI ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-07-22 11:58 +0000
    Re: Programming in the age of AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-07-22 15:56 -0700
      Re: Programming in the age of AI 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-07-23 05:10 +0200
        Re: Programming in the age of AI 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-07-23 05:23 +0200
          Re: Programming in the age of AI ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-07-23 07:00 +0000
            Re: Programming in the age of AI David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-07-23 10:43 +0200
            Re: Programming in the age of AI 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-07-23 13:13 +0200
            Re: Programming in the age of AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-07-23 15:05 -0700
        Re: Programming in the age of AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-07-22 21:38 -0700

#16913 — Programming in the age of AI

| The industry pitch was that AI would democratize coding so anyone 
| could build an app with simple text prompts. The reality is that 
| AI hasn't reduced the cognitive load of engineering; it has shifted
| the nature of the labor entirely.
| 
| It didn't remove the difficulty; it just traded one set of problems
| for another.
| 
| The Trade-Off: How the "Difficult" Shifted
| 
| [Old Difficulty]                [New Difficulty]
| 
| Writing syntax, fixing typos —> System architecture, auditing code
| 
| Stuck on a missing semicolon —> Stuck on subtle algorithmic
|                                 hallucinations
| 
| "How do I write this loop?"  —> "Is this AI-generated solution 
|                                 secure?"
| 
| 1. From "Writing" to "Code Auditing"
| 
| The old frustration was authoring code - hunting down a missing
| bracket, memorizing language syntax, or fighting with compilers.
| AI has largely automated that mechanical work.
| 
| The new frustration is code auditing. It is mentally exhausting to
| read, verify, and debug thousands of lines of code that you did not
| write. Reading code is inherently harder than writing it, and
| developers now spend their days playing detective against a highly
| confident, occasionally incompetent AI assistant.
| 
| 2. From "Google Search" to "Context Management"
| 
| In the past, the skill was knowing what to type into Google or Stack
| Overflow to find a modular fix.
| 
| Today, the skill is context engineering. You have to carefully feed
| the AI the right snippets of your codebase, explain the system
| architecture, and write complex multi-step prompts. If you give the AI
| bad context, it spits out beautiful, syntactically perfect code that
| completely breaks your existing database or API structure.
| 
| 3. The Illusion of Progress (The 80/20 Trap)
| 
| AI is incredible at getting a project to 80% completion in record
| time. It can spin up boilers, basic landing pages, and standard
| functions in seconds.
| 
| But the final 20% - handling edge cases, optimizing performance,
| securing data, and fixing race conditions - is where real software
| engineering happens. AI often struggles heavily here. Because the AI
| built the first 80% like a black box, fixing that final 20% can
| actually be harder because you don't intimately understand the
| foundation.
| 
| The New Developer Skillset
| 
| Because the difficulty has changed, the definition of a "good
| programmer" is evolving:
| 
| Architectural Literacy   You don't need to memorize how to write a
| sorting algorithm, but you must know how systems connect, scale, and
| fail.
| 
| Skepticism as a Virtue   Blindly trusting AI output leads to
| catastrophic security flaws and technical debt. Code review skills 
| are now more important than typing speed.
| 
| Deconstruction   Breaking a massive human problem into tiny, logical
| steps that an AI can actually handle without hallucinating.
| 
| AI turned programmers from bricklayers into construction site
| managers. You aren't laying every brick by hand anymore, but you are
| entirely responsible for making sure the whole building doesn't
| collapse.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16914

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> | The industry pitch was that AI would democratize coding so anyone 
> | could build an app with simple text prompts. The reality is that 
> | AI hasn't reduced the cognitive load of engineering; it has shifted
> | the nature of the labor entirely.
[SNIP]

What does the "| " prefix mean?  Is this quoted from some other source?
If so, where?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16915

W dniu 23.07.2026 o 00:56, Keith Thompson pisze:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> | The industry pitch was that AI would democratize coding so anyone
>> | could build an app with simple text prompts. The reality is that
>> | AI hasn't reduced the cognitive load of engineering; it has shifted
>> | the nature of the labor entirely.
> [SNIP]
> 
> What does the "| " prefix mean?  Is this quoted from some other source?
> If so, where? 

I suspect the same. That practise is mentioned in Mini Netiquette which 
I keep and update (URL link in my signature). The | quotation mark is 
mentioned in the section "Konfiguracja Czytników Grup Dyskusyjnych" (in 
Eng.: "Config News Readers"). This part was originally typed in the 
second half of 1990 by Marcin Dębowski (agatek[]zoho.com) - he was 
original author of Mini Netiquette in 1996-2003y.

-- 
Z totaliztycznym salutem!
Jacek Marcin Jaworski,  Pruszcz Gd., woj. Pomorskie, Polska 🇵🇱, UE 🇪🇺;
tel.: +48-609-170-742,   najlepiej w godz.: 5:00-5:55 lub 16:00-17:25;
<jmj@energokod.gda.pl>, gpg: 4A541AA7A6E872318B85D7F6A651CC39244B0BFA;
Domowa s. WWW:                             <https://energokod.gda.pl>;
Mini Netykieta:         <https://energokod.gda.pl/MiniNetykieta.html>;
Mailowa Samoobrona:             <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/pl>.
UWAGA:
NIE ZACIĄGAJ "UKRYTEGO DŁUGU"! PŁAĆ ZA PROG. FOSS I INFO. INTERNETOWE!
CZYTAJ DARMOWY: "17. Raport Totaliztyczny - Patroni Kontra Bankierzy":
<https://energokod.gda.pl/raporty-totaliztyczne/17.%20Patroni%20Kontra%20Bankierzy.pdf>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16916

W dniu 23.07.2026 o 05:10, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 pisze:
> W dniu 23.07.2026 o 00:56, Keith Thompson pisze:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> | The industry pitch was that AI would democratize coding so anyone
>>> | could build an app with simple text prompts. The reality is that
>>> | AI hasn't reduced the cognitive load of engineering; it has shifted
>>> | the nature of the labor entirely.
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> What does the "| " prefix mean?  Is this quoted from some other source?
>> If so, where? 
> 
> I suspect the same. That practise is mentioned in Mini Netiquette which 
> I keep and update (URL link in my signature). The | quotation mark is 
> mentioned in the section "Konfiguracja Czytników Grup Dyskusyjnych" (in 
> Eng.: "Config News Readers"). This part was originally typed in the 
> second half of 1990 by Marcin Dębowski (agatek[]zoho.com) - he was 
> original author of Mini Netiquette in 1996-2003y. 

And this is obviously invalid quotation, but not due to use | sign, but 
due to not mention author nor mention source (both are required by 
copyright law in every civilized country). This requirement I added in 
2025-06-12, with law quotation, in to Mini Netiquette in section "Zasady 
Cytowania" (in Eng. "Quotation Rules"), Thu. (URL link in my signature).

-- 
Z totaliztycznym salutem!
Jacek Marcin Jaworski,  Pruszcz Gd., woj. Pomorskie, Polska 🇵🇱, UE 🇪🇺;
tel.: +48-609-170-742,   najlepiej w godz.: 5:00-5:55 lub 16:00-17:25;
<jmj@energokod.gda.pl>, gpg: 4A541AA7A6E872318B85D7F6A651CC39244B0BFA;
Domowa s. WWW:                             <https://energokod.gda.pl>;
Mini Netykieta:         <https://energokod.gda.pl/MiniNetykieta.html>;
Mailowa Samoobrona:             <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/pl>.
UWAGA:
NIE ZACIĄGAJ "UKRYTEGO DŁUGU"! PŁAĆ ZA PROG. FOSS I INFO. INTERNETOWE!
CZYTAJ DARMOWY: "17. Raport Totaliztyczny - Patroni Kontra Bankierzy":
<https://energokod.gda.pl/raporty-totaliztyczne/17.%20Patroni%20Kontra%20Bankierzy.pdf>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16918

=?UTF-8?B?8J+HtfCfh7FKYWNlayBNYXJjaW4gSmF3b3Jza2nwn4e18J+HsQ==?=  <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> wrote or quoted:
>And this is obviously invalid quotation, but not due to use | sign, but 
>due to not mention author nor mention source (both are required by 

  "| " with no additional attribution, marks text by my usual pipeline:
  - I write prompts until I get some desired output from the chatbot.
  - I read and edit the output.
  - I format the output for USENET.
  (I use "|" without a space for attributed quotations.)

  Sorry, maybe I should add this info to every post of mine using "| "!

  My personal quotation styles:
  >text written or quoted by the post I reply to
  |text quoted from some source, usually attributed
  | text generated by my above pipeline

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16919

On 23/07/2026 09:00, Stefan Ram wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+HtfCfh7FKYWNlayBNYXJjaW4gSmF3b3Jza2nwn4e18J+HsQ==?=  <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> wrote or quoted:
>> And this is obviously invalid quotation, but not due to use | sign, but
>> due to not mention author nor mention source (both are required by
> 
>    "| " with no additional attribution, marks text by my usual pipeline:
>    - I write prompts until I get some desired output from the chatbot.
>    - I read and edit the output.
>    - I format the output for USENET.
>    (I use "|" without a space for attributed quotations.)
> 
>    Sorry, maybe I should add this info to every post of mine using "| "!
> 
>    My personal quotation styles:
>    >text written or quoted by the post I reply to
>    |text quoted from some source, usually attributed
>    | text generated by my above pipeline
> 
> 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply follow more common Usenet quotation and 
formatting styles?  I personally find your style somewhat jarring, with 
extra space at the start of the text you write and then out-denting 
where other people might indent, and your use of | for quoting other 
posts (contrary to what you wrote above).

If you are quoting something, no matter where it is from, it makes sense 
to identify the original source at the head of the quotation (with the 
exception of short well-known quotations).  Then readers can quickly see 
that the text is generated by a chatbot, and know it is not worth 
reading.  (Your own posts are often interesting, regurgitated AI slop is 
not - at least to me.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16920

W dniu 23.07.2026 o 09:00, Stefan Ram pisze:
>    Sorry, maybe I should add this info to every post of mine using "| "!
> 
>    My personal quotation styles:
>    >text written or quoted by the post I reply to
>    |text quoted from some source, usually attributed
>    | text generated by my above pipeline

This is not right solution! You ALWAYS should mention quoted source. 
Even if it is generated. If you don't believe ask your AI how to proper 
quote it.

BTW: Recently I added to "🇵🇱 Mini Netykieta Polskich Grup Dyskusyjnych 
🇵🇱" (in Eng. "Mini Netiquette of Polish Usenet") special section 
"Zasady Cytowania SI" (in Eng. "Quotation AI Rules").:

<https://energokod.gda.pl/MiniNetykieta.html#cytowanie-si>

In this paragraph I use quotation rules required by ChatGPT.

-- 
Z totaliztycznym salutem!
Jacek Marcin Jaworski,  Pruszcz Gd., woj. Pomorskie, Polska 🇵🇱, UE 🇪🇺;
tel.: +48-609-170-742,   najlepiej w godz.: 5:00-5:55 lub 16:00-17:25;
<jmj@energokod.gda.pl>, gpg: 4A541AA7A6E872318B85D7F6A651CC39244B0BFA;
Domowa s. WWW:                             <https://energokod.gda.pl>;
Mini Netykieta:         <https://energokod.gda.pl/MiniNetykieta.html>;
Mailowa Samoobrona:             <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/pl>.
UWAGA:
NIE ZACIĄGAJ "UKRYTEGO DŁUGU"! PŁAĆ ZA PROG. FOSS I INFO. INTERNETOWE!
CZYTAJ DARMOWY: "17. Raport Totaliztyczny - Patroni Kontra Bankierzy":
<https://energokod.gda.pl/raporty-totaliztyczne/17.%20Patroni%20Kontra%20Bankierzy.pdf>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16923

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> =?UTF-8?B?8J+HtfCfh7FKYWNlayBNYXJjaW4gSmF3b3Jza2nwn4e18J+HsQ==?=  <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> wrote or quoted:
>>And this is obviously invalid quotation, but not due to use | sign, but 
>>due to not mention author nor mention source (both are required by 
>
>   "| " with no additional attribution, marks text by my usual pipeline:
>   - I write prompts until I get some desired output from the chatbot.
>   - I read and edit the output.
>   - I format the output for USENET.
>   (I use "|" without a space for attributed quotations.)
>
>   Sorry, maybe I should add this info to every post of mine using "| "!
>
>   My personal quotation styles:
>   >text written or quoted by the post I reply to
>   |text quoted from some source, usually attributed
>   | text generated by my above pipeline

That use of "|", and especially your distinction between "|" and
"| ", is extremely unconventional, and yes, you really should tell
us what it means each time you use it *and* make the source of the
quotation clear.  Don't expect anyone to remember the odd conventions
used by one particular poster.

The universal convention is to use "> " for text quoted from the
parent article.  I strongly prefer a space after the ">" marker so it
doesn't blend into the text; this can be particularly important for
readers with visual problems.  I don't use "> " for text quoted from
other sources.  I've used various conventions for that, including
indentation and explicit markers at the beginning and end of a
quoted block.  I always try to make it clear what I'm quoting.

If you're going to post AI-generated text, I urge you to explicitly
acknowledge it as such.  Invented punctuation conventions are
insufficient.  (If you're just using AI to improve your own writing,
I suppose that doesn't need to be acknowledged if you're willing to
take complete responsibility for the words you post.)

And I again urge you to drop your habit of indenting your own
original text.  It goes directly against the conventions used by
99.9% of Usenet posters, and has no advantage I can think of.
As Henry Spencer said in a different context, "thy creativity is
better used in solving problems than in creating beautiful new
impediments to understanding".
<https://doc.cat-v.org/henry_spencer/ten-commandments>

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16917

🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> writes:
> W dniu 23.07.2026 o 00:56, Keith Thompson pisze:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> | The industry pitch was that AI would democratize coding so anyone
>>> | could build an app with simple text prompts. The reality is that
>>> | AI hasn't reduced the cognitive load of engineering; it has shifted
>>> | the nature of the labor entirely.
>> [SNIP]
>> What does the "| " prefix mean?  Is this quoted from some other
>> source?
>> If so, where? 
>
> I suspect the same. That practise is mentioned in Mini Netiquette
[snip]

Stefan Ram is the only person who can tell us anything meaningful
about what *he* meant by the "|" prefix.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web