[chaoz_]

Do you also inspect and study what assembly code your program was compiled to?

// Obviously LLMs are non-determenistic etc and it depends on your domain, but your VP's point 100% makes sense if you folks are trying to cook up another demo-CRUD apps to convince investors for another funding round

[eska]

I keep hearing this argument on HN. Yes, if performance is something you care about you totally look at the disassembly. You don’t even need to write assembly, just be able to read it. By now I assume that programmers who argue they don’t need to understand and review what the LLM generates for them are simply not that skilled and don’t realize that skilled programmers do this.

[chaoz_]

If you're just building a non-security-sensitive frontend to validate market traction, it makes total sense to go full AI. The commenter working at a 10-person company getting flamed for not using AI to iterate aggresively against competitors has a super valid point.

Validation methods will evolve to accommodate human laziness. Insisting on doing it the hard way is no different than the old-timers who used to claim engineers 'weren't skilled' if they didn't know how to use punch cards.

[eska]

Ad hominem. Skilled programmers != old-timers calling others unskilled. Who does fuzz testing, automated integration tests, etc already, that LLMs need as a test harness? It’s not the vibe coders saying “nobody reads assembly anyway” as an argument.

[chaoz_]

I simplified this argument to highlight that we’ve seen this exact pattern before.