> A lot of code is being written and a lot of it is going to be a real future burden.

This assumes that the models of the future won't find it easier to just throw the code away and rebuild it

This also assumes that the same application build by humans wouldn't become a "spaghetti mess".

I wonder. I remember before emissions, what's underneath a car hood was relatively organized and simple. Then with emissions it became a maze of vacuum hoses and so much other nonsense.

then ... in some places (maybe cars that people care about working on) it became cleaner again. In the other places, they added a second hood to hide the mess.

There is some clean code out there, like maybe the seL4 kernel:

https://github.com/seL4/seL4/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeL4

"with an explicit goal of enabling comprehensive formal verification..." (and lots more stuff)

maybe we can still have niches like this.

She's 8 years old man cut her a little slack on the code aesthetics ;)

Why would code be a burden when LLMs are the worse they will ever be today?

> Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

That is how compiler-generated assembly looks to humans, as well. Human-produced is typically much more readable. Yet, here we are. Most programmers only know the very basics of assembly programming, but the world keeps spinning just fine.

In what world would this be a future burden? It's just a throwaway fun project lol

Those of us involved in offshore projects already know the feeling.

Picking over the theoretical maintainability of one-off tools and toys that were generated in minutes by what will soon be an outdated model, feels very...missing the forest for the trees, when it comes to speculating about the future impact of this stuff.

>Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

What does this even mean? Does the software run? Did you plan on extending it? Maybe turning it into a "platform"?

Why doesn't HackerNews understand software exists to solve a problem? No one cares if code is pretty if it does the job. You can talk about "potential issues" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter.

That's the kind of thing I learned actual programming for, at the same age.

This is the finale of Close Encounters of the Third Kind

And also the 1980s electronic toy, “Simon”

>Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess

I honestly think people on here are very much overstating 'spaghetti code' when AI does it... first, it works correct? The reason I say that if the AI can continue to upgrade code that might not always look 'the prettiest' (to you..) because it doesn't care about what some of us consider to look like clean code. If it can continue to manage, document, and upgrade the code successfully.. does you calling it spaghetti code actually matter? Maybe you have a hard time reading it but the AI certainly doesn't.. I think that's worth consideration.

Every one of us has our own conventions and ideas of what 'clean' code looks like sometimes. And honestly 95% of the time we only thing it's clean if we wrote it ourselves.

> Meanwhile, one peak at the code and you can already see the state starting to become a bit of a spaghetti mess.

So it's on par with humans, then.

The job of code like this is going to serve as a makeshift spec for future coding agents, so they extract the intended use and redo it on command. Better models will be able to improve the actual code until you hit some diminishing returns for the problem you've solved.

Yes but it’s far better than anything anyone, let alone a small child, could make in 15 minutes

On the other hand an engineer might take a couple hours and build this in a clean way with the right prompting

These “got ‘em” ai criticism comments are getting so old

[dead]