[bfbf]

In my experience, it’s even more effort to get good code with an agent-when writing by hand, I fully understand the rationale for each line I write. With ai, I have to assess every clause and think about why it’s there. Even when code reviewing juniors, there’s a level of trust that they had a reason for including each line (assuming they’re not using ai too for a moment); that’s not at all my experience with Codex.

Last month I did the majority of my work through an agent, and while I did review its work, I’m now finding edge cases and bugs of the kind that I’d never have expected a human to introduce. Obviously it’s on me to better review its output, but the perceived gains of just throwing a quick bug ticket at the ai quickly disappear when you want to have a scalable project.

[heisenbit]

There is demand for non scalable, not committed to be maintained code where smaller issues can tolerated. This demand is currently underserved as coding is somewhat expensive and focused on critical functions.

[Retr0id]

What are some examples of when buggy code can be tolerated?

[dktp]

From recent personal examples

We have a somewhat complicated OpenSearch reindexing logic and we had some issue where it happened more regularly than it should. I vibecoded a dashboard visualizing in a graph exactly which index gets reindexed when and into what. Code works, a little rough around the edges. But it serves the purpose and saved me a ton of time

Another example, in an internal project we made a recent change where we need to send specific headers depending on the environment. Mostly GET endpoint where my workflow is checking the API through browser. The list of headers is long, but predetermined. I vibecoded an extension that lets you pick the header and allows me to work with my regular workflow, rather than Postman or cURL or whatever. A little buggy UI, but good enough. The whole team uses it

I'm not a frontend developer and either of these would take me a lot of time to do by hand

[nananana9]

Leaf code. Anything that you won't have to build upon long-term and is not super mission critical. Data visualizers, dashboards, internal tools.

Pretty much everywhere where a 80% working tool is better than no tool, and without AI the opportunity cost to write the tool would be too high.

[simonw]

If the code is being used by a small group of people who are willing to figure out and share workarounds for those bugs - internal staff, for example.

[skydhash]

Aren’t you also paying internal staff for their time. Waisting their time is waisting your money.

[simonw]

I've been in these situations before. If there's a known bug in an internal tool that would take the development team a day to investigate and fix - aka $10,000s - it's often smarter to send around an email saying "don't click the Froople button more than once, and if you do tell Benjamin and he'll fix it in the database for you".

Of course LLMs change that equation now because the fix might take a few minutes instead.

[zahlman]

> If there's a known bug in an internal tool that would take the development team a day to investigate and fix - aka $10,000s - it's often smarter to send around an email saying "don't click the Froople button more than once, and if you do tell Benjamin and he'll fix it in the database for you".

How much will Benjamin's time responding to those calls cost in the long run?

[dns_snek]

> development team a day to investigate and fix - aka $10,000s

What about the non-fictional 99.999999999% of the world that doesn't make $1000/hour?

[jimbokun]

The alternative is the staff having no software at all to help with their task which wastes even more of their time.

[jodrellblank]

You are setting up to say "I wouldn't tolerate that" for any example given, but if you look at the market and what makes people actually leave, instead of what makes people complain, then basically anything that isn't life-and-death, safety critical, big-money-losing, or data corrupting is tolerable. There's plenty of complaints about Microsoft, Apple, Gmail, Android, and all kinds of 3rd party niche business systems.

[Edit: DanLuu "one week of bugs": https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/ ]

All the decades people tolerated blue-screens on Windows. All the software which regularly segfaulted years ago. The permeation of "have you tried turning it off and on again" into everyday life. The "ship sooner, patch later" culture. The refusal to use garbage collected or memory managed languages or formal verification over C/C++/etc because some bugs are more tolerable than the cost/effort/performance costs to change. Display and formatting bugs, e.g. glitches in video games. When error conditions aren't handled - code that crashes if you enter blank parameters. Bugs in utility code that doesn't run often like the installer.

One software I installed yesterday told me to disable some Windows services before the install, then the installer tried to start the services at the end of the install and couldn't, so it failed and finished without finishing installing everything. This reminded me that I knew about that, because that buggy behaviour has been there for years and I've tripped over it before; at least two major versions.

Another one I regularly update tells me to close its running processes before proceding with the install, but after it's got to that state, it won't let me procede and it has no way to refresh or rescan to detect the running process has finished. That's been there for years and several major versions as well.

One more famous example is """I'm not a real programmer. I throw together things until it works then I move on. The real programmers will say "Yeah it works but you’re leaking memory everywhere. Perhaps we should fix that." I’ll just restart Apache every 10 requests.""" - Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of PHP. I've a feeling that was admitted about 37 Signals and Basecamp, it was common to restart Ruby-on-Rails code frequently, but I can't find a source to back that up.

[Itoldmyselfso]

Points at the public sector

[tonyedgecombe]

Any large enterprise. The software organisations write for themselves is pretty dire in most cases even without AI.

[zozbot234]

You need to have the AI write an increasingly detailed design and plan about what to code, assess the plan and revise it incrementally, then have it write code as planned and assess the code. You're essentially guiding the "Thinking" the AI would have to perform anyway. Yes, it takes more time and effort (though you could stop at a high-level plan and still do better than not planning at all), but it's way better than one-shotted vibe code.

[pdhborges]

The problem is those plans become huge. Now I have to review a huge plan and the comparatively short code change.

[zozbot234]

It shouldn't be any longer than the actual code, just have it write "easy pseudocode" and it's still something that you can audit and have it translate into actual coding.

[mycall]

TDD is a great way to start the plan, stubbing things it needs to achieve with E2E tests being the most important. You still need to read through them so it won't cheat, but the codebase will be much better off with them than without them.

[edgyquant]

This works but still lacks most context around previous tasks and it isn’t trivial to get it to take that into account.

[cpursley]

Throw your next bug at this: https://skills.sh/obra/superpowers/systematic-debugging

[mixologic]

I find it amazing that skills are essentially excellent tools for humans to understand too.

[Vegenoid]

I really wish they were called lessons instead of skills. It makes way more sense and prevents the overloading of the term "skill".

[mycall]

There is some papers [0] showing that the skill and agent files reduce the reasoning effectiveness in some use cases (e.g. autogenerated)

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11988

reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47034087

[soulofmischief]

We'd just be overloading "lessons" as well, and even more so because it takes more work to ground the concept, given its larger semantic distance from what we're describing.

[vips7L]

> Even when code reviewing juniors, there’s a level of trust that they had a reason for including each line (assuming they’re not using ai too for a moment)

Even my seniors are just copy pasting out whatever Claude says. People are naturally lazy, even if they know what they’re doing they don’t want to expend the effort.

[frgturpwd]

I hear you, but it seems quicker to predict whether the agent's solution is correct/sound before running it than to compose and "start" coding yourself. Understanding something that's already there seems like less effort. But I guess it highly depends on what you are doing and its level of complexity and how much you're offloading your authority and judgment.