[hintymad]

Richard Gabriel wrote a famous essay Worse Is Better (https://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html). The MIT approach vs the New Jersey approach does not necessarily apply to the discussion of the merits of coding agent, but the essay's philosophy seems relevant. AI coding sometimes sacrifices correctness or cleanness for simplicity, but it will win and win big as long as the produced code works per its users' standards.

Also, the essay notes that once a "worse" system is established, it can be incrementally improved. Following that argument, we can say that as long as the AI code runs, it creates a footprint. Once the software has users and VC funding, developers can go back and incrementally improve or refactor the AI's mess, to a satisfying degree.

[jamamp]

I hope people can ask themselves why the goal is "winning" and "winning big", and not making a product that you are proud of. It shouldn't be about VC funding and making money, shouldn't we all be making software to make the world a little bit better? I realize we live in an unfortunate reality surrounded by capitalism, but giving in to that seems shortsighted and dismissive of actual problems.

[just6979]

I hope people can see that "winning big" using that process is very unlikely NOT to be "winning long term".

(From GP) "AI coding sometimes sacrifices correctness or cleanness for simplicity, but it will win and win big as long as the produced code works per its users' standards."

Those user's standards are an ephemeral target for any software beyond a one-shot script or a hobby project with minimal user:dev ratio. That incorrect and unclean code simply isn't conducive to the many iterations needed when those "users' standards" change. And as we all know, that change is _inevitable_, and oftentimes happens before the software in question has even had a single release! Get ready to throw ever more tokens at trying to correct and clean if you ever really "win big" and need to actually support the product.

It's very much gross short-sighted thinking that goes right along with the gross short-sighted thinking providing all the [fake] value around this crap.

[nerdsniper]

Some of my projects are built with the goal of making really good software. Some of my projects are built with the goal of making money. I take pride in doing things well, but I don't let my pride get between me and financial freedom.

[hintymad]

“Winning” is just the the subjective word I quickly picked. It certainly can be another one, such as the success due to a great product as you mentioned

[AyanamiKaine]

That is true, but society as a whole does not reward "making software to make the world a little bit better". No one will come and say wow, only you self in the mirror.

I have the same feeling when creating my art-works I suffer through the process of creation and learning. While someone makes money with an ai generated art work.

Sometimes I wonder if it matters at all.

[bluefirebrand]

> It shouldn't be about VC funding and making money, shouldn't we all be making software to make the world a little bit better

I agree with you, but I think you and I are on the wrong website for this mentality.

[aurareturn]

  Once the software has users and VC funding, developers can go back and incrementally improve or refactor the AI's mess, to a satisfying degree.

Or in my case, the AI is going back to refactor some poor human written code.

I will fully admit that AI writes better code than me and does it faster.

[sesm]

What definition of simplicity implies that it can be at odds with correctness?

[Rexxar]

I would say "facility" instead of "simplicity" here.