[jayd16]

It's pretty strange to me that we imagine a world where AI can handle every problem but we still talk about code. It's like how the Jetson's had bulky TVs.

You don't talk about all the assembly high level languages make, or at least it's no longer how people view things. We don't say "look at this assembly I compiled." Instead the entire concept fades to the back.

[moregrist]

> You don't talk about all the assembly high level languages make, or at least it's no longer how people view things.

Speak for yourself. I routinely look at assembly when worrying about performance, and occasionally drop into assembly for certain things. Compilers are a tool, not a magic wand, and tools have limits.

Much like LLMs. My experience with Claude Code is that it gets significantly worse the further you push it from the mean of its training set. Giving it guidance or writing critical “key frame” sections by hand keep it on track.

People who think this is the end of looking at or writing code clearly work on very different problems than I do.

[pixl97]

The issue is you're measuring this statistic incorrectly.

If you look at the per capita number of people talking about assembly when looking at all the people on the planet it's highly likely there are more people looking at assembly now then whenever your back then was. Programmers simply where a tiny part of the population back then.

Each time we make coding easier and more high level we invite more programmers into the total pool.

[mvanbaak]

> You don't talk about all the assembly high level languages make, or at least it's no longer how people view things. We don't say "look at this assembly I compiled." Instead the entire concept fades to the back.

Some still do. Os and compiler devs to name a few

[makapuf]

And people looking at code may well be as numerous as people looking at assembly. (Which I even like to do)