I'm using AI only to clean up all the accidental complexity in the legacy projects at work that I'm paid for (this is in all C++ and Python productized from a Lisp prototypes, the latter hasn't needed that!).
Outside of work, I've stopped using AI completely in all my side projects which is very counter intuitive because even this limited use of AI at work exhausts me. This has given me a nice balance, so I do hand craft code in side projects which keeps that (now considered legacy) skill alive in case the bubble pops and we go back to old ways!
Many people who enjoyed building and coding things are going through this right now, myself included.
In my case, I felt that I was pretty good at rapid product prototyping and had made that part of my identity. Then AI agents made it trivial. It took me some time to process and accept that reality. But I’m okay with it now. I simply had to move on.
After a while, I found two things that have helped:
1. Leaning into other areas where AI can boost my skills rather than just replace them, such as writing (for example, my last two posts made it to the front page of HN) and sales (leads, proposals, etc)
2. Taking on more ambitious projects. I used to think about side projects I could complete in days, and now I think more about projects I can complete in months. With AI, days have become hours and months have become days, so I simply try to think of projects that would have taken me a long time before.
I personally used to enjoy the challenge of it. I enjoyed the craftmanship. I am so glad I got to enjoy the challenge of implementing IETF specs and the debugging interop etc... it's so sad to me now that people just bruteforce all this with agents.
I wonder how carpenters felt when powertools started taking off?
I reckon powertools is the wrong comparison, my grandfather was a cabinetmaker(born in the 1930's) and he never shied away from using a powertool & any contractors/tradesman largely raves about their favourite brand of powertools.
I think the more apt comparison would be a carpenter to a mass produced factory. If you've read any of Yegge's recent ramblings than factories of factories seem to be what the AI focused peeps like to produce.
Here is another thing I find frustrating, but I don't know the right way to express it. A lot of this AI tooling/coding seems self-indulgent? 'I built a better software factory!'. The tools are very powerful, but I don't see the results yet. The frustration outweighs results.
I am underwater dealing with it. I am getting outlandish PRs against Pion. So I spend my time triaging and feel burned out. The 'AI future' I was expecting would be people swooping in and clearing up the backlog in high quality ways.
Instead I get people trying to add new APIs when it can already be done with existing APIs and then arguing about it with me.
Please don't forget you are under no obligation to triage all the awful things.
You are well within your rights to require submitters reach a certain standard before you will review their request.
Your time is finite and precious. Your project benefits from your enthusiasm and knowledge. It does not benefit from you acting as human reviewer of a tsunami of low quality content.
You are allowed to be ruthlessly protective of your time to the benefit of your project.
This begs an importent question: how? How do you filter without putting up barriers that high quality contributors will not want to climb?
I ask both as a maintainer who has been overwhelmed and as someone who declines to participate in communities where the bar is set too high for casual drive-by contributions.
Make it a rule that any PR that changes over ... 100 LoC? 150? <some number you're comfortable with> needs to be broken down into smaller, more atomic ones.
If that can't be done, e.g. because it's a very large refactor that can only be published as a unit, get them to walk you through each design and architectural choice.
I don't think a high quality contributor will take issue with that.
Because the factories of factories is mostly bullshit. OpenAI blogged about how it was complicated for them to build a project using AI alone and the specs in the repo, how easy it was for models to get lost, not do what was expected of them and the burden it was on the team.
I don't think we will never get there but we're definitely not there yet. Models still require a lot of handholding to get things done.
> I reckon powertools is the wrong comparison, my grandfather was a cabinetmaker(born in the 1930's) and he never shied away from using a powertool & any contractors/tradesman largely raves about their favourite brand of powertools.
I suspect there's some survivorship bias at play here. You don't hear what the tradesmen who shied away from using powertools thought because they ceased to find work as tradesmen.
In the same way, future software makers will all be raving about their favorite LLM.
He also made the most beautiful hand crafted woodwork I’ve seen.
I dunno, I feel my comparison is more apt. AI tries to anything & everything. A powered drill just drills, and saves your arm/wrist from a manual drill.
A better analogy for an individual might be a cnc lathe. You can make anything you want perfectly but if you enjoyed wood turning then you may not get the same satisfaction from the process of running a cnc.
I think there’s still value in hand made furniture with little to no power tool involvement. There’s certainly value in creating furniture yourself in this way.
It doesn’t give answer the question about the people who loved that job , the many old school carpenters who had to adapt or give up.
I wonder if hand coding will become mostly a hobby and maybe a niche market. I’m not saying I like it, that’s tbd, but I wonder about it.
There might be a lot going on, depending on what kind of programming tasks you use AI for, but here's one hunch: I think the current AI usage pattern disrupts our core sense-making mechanism on the code we create. It jumps from nothing to a full implementation too quickly and there's no gradual learning curve (impedance match) gently pulling us along, which makes the coding process highly disorienting.
First, anhedonia is a real psychological crisis. You might want to speak to a professional.
Second, the old saying "it's the journey not the destination" is apt here. If you didn't enjoy the process in the first place then even if AI never came around something would have knocked the wind out of your sails. If you love the process what do you care that AI can do it faster? You can still do the thing. Either learn to love the process or begin the journey of searching for some other thing to fill the void left behind.
> If you love the process what do you care that AI can do it faster? You can still do the thing
I can still hike to the top of mountains even though helicopters exist, but if helicopter tourism is as popular as it seems to be becoming, and Bluetooth speakers are as available as they are, the journey and result is going to feel very different, if it's not entirely ruined.
The comparison breaks down because noise pollution is unavoidable. AI hype might be unavoidable unless you code in a vacuum but you can be disciplined in how much you let it in. Even if AI cheapens the actual output, it fundamentally cannot touch your intrinsic motivations for work, which was my original point.
If you can't resist the temptation to pull the AI slot machine lever (which is not necessarily a personal failing!), you might want to seriously examine what your actual motivations are. If you have to use AI for your day job, then yeah it sucks the journey is being taken away from you.
Yes pretty much have to do it for work or at the very least deal with AI PRs and reviews. Also it now feels kinda silly to do it manually even for personal projects because I know there is a faster/better? way and before I wasn't doing it to be hardcore I was just doing it because that's what needed to be done now doing it by hand is like people who enjoy working with those old punch card computers which is a thing but not really the same. The broader ecosystem where you could get help like stackoverflow is also disappearing so I am not even sure how you would solve tricky undocumented issues now maybe by digging really deep into the systems but doesn't seem practical.
I consider myself reasonably skilled in AI usage (multiple harnesses, skills, MCP, etc). I use only the latest models: Opus 5, GPT 5.6 Sol. I experiment with different plan-build-evaluate frameworks like GSD, OpenSpec, Superpowers. I have a reasonable AGENTS.md without much cruft: test coverage ~80%, ASD-STE100 English, use uv - things like that.
I can churn out single-use scripts and micro-projects like there's no tomorrow - one shot GSD in autonomous mode usually nails it.
But when it comes to any larger software, it STARTS very promising, but very quickly becomes a quagmire of a death by thousand cuts. I steer the general ideas well enough, but the amount of code and tests quickly grows overwhelming, weird shit starts to creep in, 2000-test harness starts to test literal things, features error out, fixes take longer and produce tons of defensive code. Asking the model to "refactor if it improves readability and reduces complexity" usually only increases complexity. After $3-5k in tokens spent on a 100k+ LoC monstrosity I just don't even want to touch it anymore. AI feels like a trap that lures you with easy wins but then you pay the debts.
Many words to say the same as many others in this thread: good design takes time and working WITH the code, seeing and internalizing the decisions.
I also don't know what to do. Writing things completely by hand just doesn't feel right anymore, and co-designing with AI (as in laying out the classes and function contracts etc) feels weird because you need to iterate to build understanding, but the LLM will happily follow any stupid idea you happened to have.
Quadruple all of this when you work in a team and keep getting 5-minute effort 10k LoC PRs with 20-line load-bearing honest caveat comments.
Programming was the thing that clicked for me most out of anything I've done in my life. That's not to say I was an exceptional programmer, probably a bit above average among professionals but not by much. However for some reason I am absolutely having the time of my life using AI tools to build all kinds of fun and useful (to me) things.
I do sometimes miss programming by hand; the flow state, the satisfaction upon completion, the sense of ownership and identity. But it feels similar to how I look back on doing math in college... a fun thing I was pursuing at the time. An academic and pure thing that I may return to as a hobby someday.
Because I'm guessing your passion was for the craft and not just the result.
Before there were factories, if you wanted a chair you needed an artisan to make one for you. When factories pumped out chairs, there was no need for the artisan to make chairs. But building factories that made chairs was a craft in itself. If you wanted a factory to make chairs, you needed an artisan to set one up for you. A craft became redundant, but enabled another to exist.
It's natural to mourn a craft that becomes redundant. But such an event is not unique.
I do think there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself. At some point there's no room for a human artisan to build on top. The required faculties become too great for any human mind.
> there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself.
It's particularly frustrating that it's simultaneously superhuman and incredibly unreliable when it comes to cognition.
E.g. it can whip out 100,000 lines of code in the time you'd write 500...but 5% of that code will be janky, or subtly buggy, etc.
It's the "oh...you're absolutely right!" effect. I can't think of any other tools that are so powerful yet so finnicky and almost guaranteed to fail in ways that are so difficult to detect.
Yes, although the folks that said "this is the worst it will ever be" have some evidence in their court. The best models now are much better than the best models a year ago.
Some big gnarly problems remain (e.g. continual learning), but I think the fact of AI existing and being better than humans at cognition no longer seems like something out in the far future.
> The best models now are much better than the best models a year ago.
I went back to using Opus 4.8. I don't feel like the newest models are all that much better. The tooling around them has gotten better, and i guess mythos et al are good at hacking or whatever, but the models don't seem any better at not making mistakes than 6-8 months ago
Choose between 1. You don't love what you're working on or 2. You don't enjoy working with AI. IMO those are the two primary problems, and both solvable in their own way (more or less).
Isn't that the actual endgame, what we're doing? All tasks done, all software written, everything automated, housing and food for everyone, humanity free to enjoy whatever?
So yeah, enjoy whatever makes you happy. Take a break, find a hobby, travel somewhere. Or do nothing, that also works.
It's in the act of solving greed and cruelty right now, but it's gonna magnify both for a little while before it's finally solved forever. There won't be any humans left alive when it's done, but that's the price we must pay for "Peace on Earth".
It's not crazy to feel this way. When the barrier to entry drops dramatically very quickly, it's natural to re-evaluate all your priorities. I personally flip between apathy and excitement.
User expectations are also going to grow. If you're already a dev, you're already ahead if you keep up. It's always been the case that someone could release a free package that makes your personal proprietary software suddenly hard to justify.
I don't think anyone is worried about user expectations. It's management expectations. The output expectation goes up, while the quality of that output goes down, but is still your responsibility.
I'm not surprised professional software developers are not enjoying AI development.
When using AI you're not the one doing the work, thus you don't feel the same satisfaction as crafting something yourself, nor does it incite any passion.
I had the same feeling at some point, until I went back to coding by hand just to exercise my skills, and I have to say after a while it felt so much better and I was hooked on working my little side project. Using AI doesn't scratch the same itch for me.
There are plenty of unsolved problems in this world. Rather than rant how seniors still live mostly analog lives because "tech is aimed at 20-somethings", the old saying goes, solving problems that don't make a quick buck and scale to insane (and as we see with Meta, unsustainable) sizes [0] but which meet needs is the definition of "value".
No trillion dollar IPO, just problems solved, and solved more easily (supposedly). Everyone's looking for the goose that lays golden eggs, (and spending trillions to do so) when there's a need for the edible variety. Metaphor; I'm not suggesting going into the egg business.
Your brain, your values. Only you can know why you ascribe less value to things that AI readily produces, but it is fundamentally a choice you get to make.
In the beforetimes, a lot of people didn't value software, but many software developers still did.
You don't have to jump through hoops of your own making to justify the things you want to enjoy and, outside of the workplace, people won't value you as an individual based on any set of performance criteria.
Try to increase the complexity of the work you're doing. It's not that AIs don't makes mistakes but they are able to pattern match to larger and larger pieces of the problem as more people use it and more iterations of the model are released. So your challenge is now in steering it in a way that these errors are minimised while reducing bloat.
Try to think of yourself as a professor who's trying to come up with a problem statement worth solving. The AI is your "lab" that will help you run experiments.
It should focus on dopamine and the habit of getting rewards without putting in much effort. We should identify activities that give instant gratification and gradually introduce activities that require more effort, helping users get comfortable with delayed rewards and build better habits over time.
Interestingly enough, I went the other way round. AI made results readily available, but there was a combination of needing to fine-tune the process + adding corrections which I found a lot better than tinkering with code. I was never a craftsman, but I had interests in areas adjacent and not-so-adjacent, so AI freeing up my time made me able to link other things together.
1. It’s natural to lose interest in things. I used to be into pop music. Lost interest. I used to game a lot. Lost interest. I used to be into various TV shows, lost interest
2. Not special any more.
I’m not sure this is true but I used to enjoy writing a blog. This was 1998-2005. Once everyone started posting via FB and Twitter it felt to me no longer like I was doing something special. That might be egotistical but whatever. I felt like I didn’t have as much to say
Similarly I made games for decades. Then Unity and Unreal made it trivial. New games are posted hourly on itch.io and 1000 other sites. I no longer felt special making a game
If anything I think AI might contribute here. It used to feel special to code. Now, anyone can do it. Yes they are not perfect. But I’ve met non coders making really impressive apps. and, it will only get better at it.
That said, LLMs have made me pick up and complete 6 projects in the last 6 months. They removed the tedium and frustration of dealing with bad docs, version breaks, etc and let me build the things I wanted to build without getting stuck in the weeds
all of this is the long way of saying, whatever issue you’re having with motivation it’s got nothing to do with AI. It’s something else and you’re just using AI as an excuse because it’s the new thing
Roughly speaking, you might have taken a task that was in the control, flow, or relaxation zone, closer to the center there, and lowered the difficulty so much that now it's flat out in the middle of the boredom zone.
My answer to this is to either seek out much harder problems (moving it back up into challenge, for example), or to change to a task where I have lower skill and so am in the learning mode rather than the execution mode, which I find much more pleasant and compelling than boring.
You change the goalpost, basically, or give yourself a handicap, to bootstrap yourself back up into motivating regions of the graph. Just a model, but I think it's one that is really useful.
Precisely so. This is also why you find people, mid career, suddenly having that crisis and trying some different things to break up the monotony. If we had a more stable system of employment, things like sabbaticals become really essential to reset the joie de vivre you lose when you start to be an expert executing the same plan over and over.
I don’t think it's the same at all. Nobody is interested in watching computers play against each other, so he still can do what he loves. He didn't suddenly have to work with/through machines now.
Why not Goliath when he lost to David's new-fangled technology?
Wikipedia[1] says Deep Blue had 30x 120Mhz CPUs and 480 custom VLSI chess chips, and could do 11 GFLOPS. HN[2] says that's roughly an iPhone 5s.
Wikipedia[2] says 11 GFLOPS of compute power cost about half a billion inflation-adjusted dollars in the mid 1980s when the Deep Blue project was started; cost about half a million in 1996 when it was playing Kasparov; costs about 12 cents today. (Of course it's daft to compare custom chess chips and CPUs and GPUs, supercomputers and mobile SoCs, but it'll do).
how are we supposed to answer that? we don't know anything about you lol. you gotta give me more info, like, results for what? when you're coding? what are you working on? is it driven by yourself or is it for your job? help me help you.
Same tbh. I lost my motivation to do any work aside from my job for a while. Now I'm working on some stuff for my friends, heavy using AI and it's just...meh. Whatever feeling of craftsmanship and skill I had is gone, now it's mostly mechanical. And if this is the case, I feel like I might as well go do something more interesting / lucrative / beneficial to society.
[philosophical mode ON, please don't take too seriously/personally if you care to engage]
You may have seen the regular stream of youtube videos in your feed with the hook that reads something like "humans will be obsolete in two years" or "software development as a career is over".
I disagree, and furthermore, that's a psyop! Don't believe the hype!
You may have seen the endless stream of technical articles here complaining about the craft going out of coding and devs being reduced to AI slop pull request reviewers.
I scoff at these devs, have they no agency? I also choose to believe they are part of the psyop even if they are real people with real experiences because their articles get boosted with a purpose.
And what do I believe the purpose is? What is the psyop? I think it is many-pronged.
We developers are quite powerful in society, and it is useful to humble us from time to time. It is useful to keep us compliant. Having us accept a dire fate makes it easier to tamp down wage inflation (which helps pay the AI tab in the short term, BTW!).
Also, regarding cycles and generations, having AI pump out an ocean of tech debt creates busy work for future generations to unravel. This make-work aimed at maintaining and fixing things is useful in that it keeps people steadily employed and controls the rate of new development and technological advancement.
Sometimes I muse when I hear stories about AI vendors' ability to "turn up/down" the intelligence factor on coding agents. Is this a fine tuning of the slop error factor getting it just where they need it to be?
I observe in my career that getting developer tools paid for by corporations has been a bit like getting blood from a stone. Yet suddenly, corporate america is in a rush to put this super costly _subscription-based_ tool in my hands. What gives?
Yes, latest fad/bubble/craze. A few sillycon valley tech bros are trying to make a computer god superintelligence to worship and control, maybe, ugh I guess probably some of them.
But, from a metaphysical standpoint, one can argue there is a "spirit" to every age. This age's spirit seems obsessed with management. And, there are high level leaders who are obsessed with managing the human population with ever-increasing fidelity. So of course AI will be the latest finance/technology/information system that is released along those lines.
It's your choice how to proceed, as with all things use your free will. I will observe you do everyone you know and all of your descendants the most good if you constantly strive to have the highest aims.
In my opinion, 'slop' creates an unacceptable crisis. Slop will continue the wheel of wasted energy and potential that we are in now. To break this cycle, developers need to be obsessed with controlled code, zero bugs, and human-led software design.
What does any of that mean in practice? How? The answers come from our community, from thought leaders and taste makers. We need to develop industry standards to judge one another by and then hold one another accountable.
As to you personally and your passion problem, I get it. I am feeling the same. I hope you have a small personal project, maybe never to be shared, that you can at least retreat to when your energy is low.
I recently stayed up late and upgraded the build system on mine, just some busy work I knew I needed to get done and which let me ply some new devops techniques I learned. It felt really good to be reminded that I could be productive and clever even in a low energy situation. And my week improved after that.
I'm using AI only to clean up all the accidental complexity in the legacy projects at work that I'm paid for (this is in all C++ and Python productized from a Lisp prototypes, the latter hasn't needed that!).
Outside of work, I've stopped using AI completely in all my side projects which is very counter intuitive because even this limited use of AI at work exhausts me. This has given me a nice balance, so I do hand craft code in side projects which keeps that (now considered legacy) skill alive in case the bubble pops and we go back to old ways!
Maybe it's because you built your life around work. But no AI can replace real experiences...
Many people who enjoyed building and coding things are going through this right now, myself included.
In my case, I felt that I was pretty good at rapid product prototyping and had made that part of my identity. Then AI agents made it trivial. It took me some time to process and accept that reality. But I’m okay with it now. I simply had to move on.
After a while, I found two things that have helped:
1. Leaning into other areas where AI can boost my skills rather than just replace them, such as writing (for example, my last two posts made it to the front page of HN) and sales (leads, proposals, etc)
2. Taking on more ambitious projects. I used to think about side projects I could complete in days, and now I think more about projects I can complete in months. With AI, days have become hours and months have become days, so I simply try to think of projects that would have taken me a long time before.
I personally used to enjoy the challenge of it. I enjoyed the craftmanship. I am so glad I got to enjoy the challenge of implementing IETF specs and the debugging interop etc... it's so sad to me now that people just bruteforce all this with agents.
I wonder how carpenters felt when powertools started taking off?
I reckon powertools is the wrong comparison, my grandfather was a cabinetmaker(born in the 1930's) and he never shied away from using a powertool & any contractors/tradesman largely raves about their favourite brand of powertools.
I think the more apt comparison would be a carpenter to a mass produced factory. If you've read any of Yegge's recent ramblings than factories of factories seem to be what the AI focused peeps like to produce.
Here is another thing I find frustrating, but I don't know the right way to express it. A lot of this AI tooling/coding seems self-indulgent? 'I built a better software factory!'. The tools are very powerful, but I don't see the results yet. The frustration outweighs results.
I am underwater dealing with it. I am getting outlandish PRs against Pion. So I spend my time triaging and feel burned out. The 'AI future' I was expecting would be people swooping in and clearing up the backlog in high quality ways.
Instead I get people trying to add new APIs when it can already be done with existing APIs and then arguing about it with me.
Please don't forget you are under no obligation to triage all the awful things.
You are well within your rights to require submitters reach a certain standard before you will review their request.
Your time is finite and precious. Your project benefits from your enthusiasm and knowledge. It does not benefit from you acting as human reviewer of a tsunami of low quality content.
You are allowed to be ruthlessly protective of your time to the benefit of your project.
This begs an importent question: how? How do you filter without putting up barriers that high quality contributors will not want to climb?
I ask both as a maintainer who has been overwhelmed and as someone who declines to participate in communities where the bar is set too high for casual drive-by contributions.
Make it a rule that any PR that changes over ... 100 LoC? 150? <some number you're comfortable with> needs to be broken down into smaller, more atomic ones.
If that can't be done, e.g. because it's a very large refactor that can only be published as a unit, get them to walk you through each design and architectural choice.
I don't think a high quality contributor will take issue with that.
I only maintain my own codebases, so my deepest commiserations my fellow.
I’d imagine I’d just want to turn repo’s private or gate who has access, that’s my default response.
Because the factories of factories is mostly bullshit. OpenAI blogged about how it was complicated for them to build a project using AI alone and the specs in the repo, how easy it was for models to get lost, not do what was expected of them and the burden it was on the team.
I don't think we will never get there but we're definitely not there yet. Models still require a lot of handholding to get things done.
> I reckon powertools is the wrong comparison, my grandfather was a cabinetmaker(born in the 1930's) and he never shied away from using a powertool & any contractors/tradesman largely raves about their favourite brand of powertools.
I suspect there's some survivorship bias at play here. You don't hear what the tradesmen who shied away from using powertools thought because they ceased to find work as tradesmen.
In the same way, future software makers will all be raving about their favorite LLM.
He also made the most beautiful hand crafted woodwork I’ve seen.
I dunno, I feel my comparison is more apt. AI tries to anything & everything. A powered drill just drills, and saves your arm/wrist from a manual drill.
A better analogy for an individual might be a cnc lathe. You can make anything you want perfectly but if you enjoyed wood turning then you may not get the same satisfaction from the process of running a cnc.
Carpenters and powertools sounds more like handwriting or typewriting vs using a computer to write.
AI feels like something else entirely. You're not even doing the writing or the thinking, you're telling someone else to do it and they "do" it.
It's more like a carpenter walking into a factory and saying to someone I want to build xyz and it builds it immediately.
Powertools are new language features. AI is more of an Ikea factory. No self respecting carpenter wish to work there, but some have to
I think there’s still value in hand made furniture with little to no power tool involvement. There’s certainly value in creating furniture yourself in this way. It doesn’t give answer the question about the people who loved that job , the many old school carpenters who had to adapt or give up.
I wonder if hand coding will become mostly a hobby and maybe a niche market. I’m not saying I like it, that’s tbd, but I wonder about it.
There might be a lot going on, depending on what kind of programming tasks you use AI for, but here's one hunch: I think the current AI usage pattern disrupts our core sense-making mechanism on the code we create. It jumps from nothing to a full implementation too quickly and there's no gradual learning curve (impedance match) gently pulling us along, which makes the coding process highly disorienting.
https://woventhought.substack.com/p/ai-assistants-need-adapt...
First, anhedonia is a real psychological crisis. You might want to speak to a professional.
Second, the old saying "it's the journey not the destination" is apt here. If you didn't enjoy the process in the first place then even if AI never came around something would have knocked the wind out of your sails. If you love the process what do you care that AI can do it faster? You can still do the thing. Either learn to love the process or begin the journey of searching for some other thing to fill the void left behind.
> If you love the process what do you care that AI can do it faster? You can still do the thing
I can still hike to the top of mountains even though helicopters exist, but if helicopter tourism is as popular as it seems to be becoming, and Bluetooth speakers are as available as they are, the journey and result is going to feel very different, if it's not entirely ruined.
The comparison breaks down because noise pollution is unavoidable. AI hype might be unavoidable unless you code in a vacuum but you can be disciplined in how much you let it in. Even if AI cheapens the actual output, it fundamentally cannot touch your intrinsic motivations for work, which was my original point.
A big part of the journey is the exact thing AI took away though! The destination mostly has remained.
If you can't resist the temptation to pull the AI slot machine lever (which is not necessarily a personal failing!), you might want to seriously examine what your actual motivations are. If you have to use AI for your day job, then yeah it sucks the journey is being taken away from you.
Yes pretty much have to do it for work or at the very least deal with AI PRs and reviews. Also it now feels kinda silly to do it manually even for personal projects because I know there is a faster/better? way and before I wasn't doing it to be hardcore I was just doing it because that's what needed to be done now doing it by hand is like people who enjoy working with those old punch card computers which is a thing but not really the same. The broader ecosystem where you could get help like stackoverflow is also disappearing so I am not even sure how you would solve tricky undocumented issues now maybe by digging really deep into the systems but doesn't seem practical.
Note: Anhedonia is the inability to feel pleasure or joy.
It is very difficult.
I consider myself reasonably skilled in AI usage (multiple harnesses, skills, MCP, etc). I use only the latest models: Opus 5, GPT 5.6 Sol. I experiment with different plan-build-evaluate frameworks like GSD, OpenSpec, Superpowers. I have a reasonable AGENTS.md without much cruft: test coverage ~80%, ASD-STE100 English, use uv - things like that.
I can churn out single-use scripts and micro-projects like there's no tomorrow - one shot GSD in autonomous mode usually nails it.
But when it comes to any larger software, it STARTS very promising, but very quickly becomes a quagmire of a death by thousand cuts. I steer the general ideas well enough, but the amount of code and tests quickly grows overwhelming, weird shit starts to creep in, 2000-test harness starts to test literal things, features error out, fixes take longer and produce tons of defensive code. Asking the model to "refactor if it improves readability and reduces complexity" usually only increases complexity. After $3-5k in tokens spent on a 100k+ LoC monstrosity I just don't even want to touch it anymore. AI feels like a trap that lures you with easy wins but then you pay the debts.
Many words to say the same as many others in this thread: good design takes time and working WITH the code, seeing and internalizing the decisions.
I also don't know what to do. Writing things completely by hand just doesn't feel right anymore, and co-designing with AI (as in laying out the classes and function contracts etc) feels weird because you need to iterate to build understanding, but the LLM will happily follow any stupid idea you happened to have.
Quadruple all of this when you work in a team and keep getting 5-minute effort 10k LoC PRs with 20-line load-bearing honest caveat comments.
Maybe it's time to get to woodworking.
Programming was the thing that clicked for me most out of anything I've done in my life. That's not to say I was an exceptional programmer, probably a bit above average among professionals but not by much. However for some reason I am absolutely having the time of my life using AI tools to build all kinds of fun and useful (to me) things.
I do sometimes miss programming by hand; the flow state, the satisfaction upon completion, the sense of ownership and identity. But it feels similar to how I look back on doing math in college... a fun thing I was pursuing at the time. An academic and pure thing that I may return to as a hobby someday.
Because I'm guessing your passion was for the craft and not just the result.
Before there were factories, if you wanted a chair you needed an artisan to make one for you. When factories pumped out chairs, there was no need for the artisan to make chairs. But building factories that made chairs was a craft in itself. If you wanted a factory to make chairs, you needed an artisan to set one up for you. A craft became redundant, but enabled another to exist.
It's natural to mourn a craft that becomes redundant. But such an event is not unique.
I do think there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself. At some point there's no room for a human artisan to build on top. The required faculties become too great for any human mind.
> there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself.
It's particularly frustrating that it's simultaneously superhuman and incredibly unreliable when it comes to cognition.
E.g. it can whip out 100,000 lines of code in the time you'd write 500...but 5% of that code will be janky, or subtly buggy, etc.
It's the "oh...you're absolutely right!" effect. I can't think of any other tools that are so powerful yet so finnicky and almost guaranteed to fail in ways that are so difficult to detect.
Yes, although the folks that said "this is the worst it will ever be" have some evidence in their court. The best models now are much better than the best models a year ago.
Some big gnarly problems remain (e.g. continual learning), but I think the fact of AI existing and being better than humans at cognition no longer seems like something out in the far future.
> The best models now are much better than the best models a year ago.
I went back to using Opus 4.8. I don't feel like the newest models are all that much better. The tooling around them has gotten better, and i guess mythos et al are good at hacking or whatever, but the models don't seem any better at not making mistakes than 6-8 months ago
Choose between 1. You don't love what you're working on or 2. You don't enjoy working with AI. IMO those are the two primary problems, and both solvable in their own way (more or less).
Isn't that the actual endgame, what we're doing? All tasks done, all software written, everything automated, housing and food for everyone, humanity free to enjoy whatever?
So yeah, enjoy whatever makes you happy. Take a break, find a hobby, travel somewhere. Or do nothing, that also works.
Housing and food for everyone. I guess I missed the step where that part happens.
> housing and food for everyone
Ocean view mansions and steak dinners for everyone!
> housing and food for everyone
This obviously won't happen, because we could do it now, could have done it already, long before AI.
Let me know when AI solves greed and cruelty.
> Let me know when AI solves greed and cruelty.
It's in the act of solving greed and cruelty right now, but it's gonna magnify both for a little while before it's finally solved forever. There won't be any humans left alive when it's done, but that's the price we must pay for "Peace on Earth".
Let me know when AI solves perversion and horniness.
Actual doing is usually responsible for the long-term satisfaction people derive from work.
Cut that out and you're just managing an email inbox.
It's not crazy to feel this way. When the barrier to entry drops dramatically very quickly, it's natural to re-evaluate all your priorities. I personally flip between apathy and excitement.
User expectations are also going to grow. If you're already a dev, you're already ahead if you keep up. It's always been the case that someone could release a free package that makes your personal proprietary software suddenly hard to justify.
I don't think anyone is worried about user expectations. It's management expectations. The output expectation goes up, while the quality of that output goes down, but is still your responsibility.
I'm not surprised professional software developers are not enjoying AI development.
When using AI you're not the one doing the work, thus you don't feel the same satisfaction as crafting something yourself, nor does it incite any passion.
I had the same feeling at some point, until I went back to coding by hand just to exercise my skills, and I have to say after a while it felt so much better and I was hooked on working my little side project. Using AI doesn't scratch the same itch for me.
Suggestion from left field. Solve problems.
There are plenty of unsolved problems in this world. Rather than rant how seniors still live mostly analog lives because "tech is aimed at 20-somethings", the old saying goes, solving problems that don't make a quick buck and scale to insane (and as we see with Meta, unsustainable) sizes [0] but which meet needs is the definition of "value".
No trillion dollar IPO, just problems solved, and solved more easily (supposedly). Everyone's looking for the goose that lays golden eggs, (and spending trillions to do so) when there's a need for the edible variety. Metaphor; I'm not suggesting going into the egg business.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49505036
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/mark-zuckerberg-shockin...
Your brain, your values. Only you can know why you ascribe less value to things that AI readily produces, but it is fundamentally a choice you get to make.
In the beforetimes, a lot of people didn't value software, but many software developers still did.
You don't have to jump through hoops of your own making to justify the things you want to enjoy and, outside of the workplace, people won't value you as an individual based on any set of performance criteria.
Because you perceive a readily available result to be worth less? Why do something whose value has gone down?
AI is like being a manager. To someone who was never interested in that, it certainly feels like your new job is not as good.
It's the opposite for me, AI takes away the drudgery, and I want to build everything I can think of.
Try to increase the complexity of the work you're doing. It's not that AIs don't makes mistakes but they are able to pattern match to larger and larger pieces of the problem as more people use it and more iterations of the model are released. So your challenge is now in steering it in a way that these errors are minimised while reducing bloat.
Try to think of yourself as a professor who's trying to come up with a problem statement worth solving. The AI is your "lab" that will help you run experiments.
It should focus on dopamine and the habit of getting rewards without putting in much effort. We should identify activities that give instant gratification and gradually introduce activities that require more effort, helping users get comfortable with delayed rewards and build better habits over time.
Interestingly enough, I went the other way round. AI made results readily available, but there was a combination of needing to fine-tune the process + adding corrections which I found a lot better than tinkering with code. I was never a craftsman, but I had interests in areas adjacent and not-so-adjacent, so AI freeing up my time made me able to link other things together.
I actually enjoy work more now.
I don’t think it has anything to do with AI.
My thoughts:
1. It’s natural to lose interest in things. I used to be into pop music. Lost interest. I used to game a lot. Lost interest. I used to be into various TV shows, lost interest
2. Not special any more. I’m not sure this is true but I used to enjoy writing a blog. This was 1998-2005. Once everyone started posting via FB and Twitter it felt to me no longer like I was doing something special. That might be egotistical but whatever. I felt like I didn’t have as much to say
Similarly I made games for decades. Then Unity and Unreal made it trivial. New games are posted hourly on itch.io and 1000 other sites. I no longer felt special making a game
If anything I think AI might contribute here. It used to feel special to code. Now, anyone can do it. Yes they are not perfect. But I’ve met non coders making really impressive apps. and, it will only get better at it.
That said, LLMs have made me pick up and complete 6 projects in the last 6 months. They removed the tedium and frustration of dealing with bad docs, version breaks, etc and let me build the things I wanted to build without getting stuck in the weeds
all of this is the long way of saying, whatever issue you’re having with motivation it’s got nothing to do with AI. It’s something else and you’re just using AI as an excuse because it’s the new thing
Motivational saliency requires both the ability to learn and increasing difficulty - witness video games.
The model I think makes sense here is the Csikszentmihalyi Flow model, by another name the challenge-skill model of effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Characterist...
Roughly speaking, you might have taken a task that was in the control, flow, or relaxation zone, closer to the center there, and lowered the difficulty so much that now it's flat out in the middle of the boredom zone.
My answer to this is to either seek out much harder problems (moving it back up into challenge, for example), or to change to a task where I have lower skill and so am in the learning mode rather than the execution mode, which I find much more pleasant and compelling than boring.
You change the goalpost, basically, or give yourself a handicap, to bootstrap yourself back up into motivating regions of the graph. Just a model, but I think it's one that is really useful.
I didn’t know that theory but makes sense.
When I was little, I was surprised to find that using a Game Genie made a lot of Nintendo games instantly become boring.
Precisely so. This is also why you find people, mid career, suddenly having that crisis and trying some different things to break up the monotony. If we had a more stable system of employment, things like sabbaticals become really essential to reset the joie de vivre you lose when you start to be an expert executing the same plan over and over.
you should definitely do some soul-searching based on great advice given here and let us know
Almost everyone is now about to feel what Lee Sedol felt a decade ago.
We are all Lee Sedol.
I don’t think it's the same at all. Nobody is interested in watching computers play against each other, so he still can do what he loves. He didn't suddenly have to work with/through machines now.
He quit playing...
I didn't immediately get the reference. He is the Korean Go player who lost to AlphaGo in 2016.
Why not Kasparov when he lost to Deep Blue though?
Why not Goliath when he lost to David's new-fangled technology?
Wikipedia[1] says Deep Blue had 30x 120Mhz CPUs and 480 custom VLSI chess chips, and could do 11 GFLOPS. HN[2] says that's roughly an iPhone 5s.
Wikipedia[2] says 11 GFLOPS of compute power cost about half a billion inflation-adjusted dollars in the mid 1980s when the Deep Blue project was started; cost about half a million in 1996 when it was playing Kasparov; costs about 12 cents today. (Of course it's daft to compare custom chess chips and CPUs and GPUs, supercomputers and mobile SoCs, but it'll do).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626731
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point_operations_per_...
I don’t get it. The premise is flawed.
AI does not create world shattering products.
You haven’t made any big hits either (with or without AI).
What’s changed?
Use AI all you want, that isn’t going to bring your passion to life. It’s no different than using an IDE or React or GitHub.
The world is still starving for novel experiences and solutions to annoying problems and clunky workflows.
AI hasn’t changed that. It hasn’t delivered anything either. For that you need the lonely mind of a man
how are we supposed to answer that? we don't know anything about you lol. you gotta give me more info, like, results for what? when you're coding? what are you working on? is it driven by yourself or is it for your job? help me help you.
Find another hobby, or find another way to make you enjoy coding. Understand underneath what drove you to coding and apply it somewhere else.
Do things in physical space.
Why does cheating give you impostor syndrome?
You stopped creating value and started extracting it. You stopped thinking about how to best serve humanity and started thinking about how to use AI
I don’t give a crap about passion, I need to pay rent.
Hypothetically if Google starts hiring paint dry watchers I’d do it for 200k a year
Same tbh. I lost my motivation to do any work aside from my job for a while. Now I'm working on some stuff for my friends, heavy using AI and it's just...meh. Whatever feeling of craftsmanship and skill I had is gone, now it's mostly mechanical. And if this is the case, I feel like I might as well go do something more interesting / lucrative / beneficial to society.
[philosophical mode ON, please don't take too seriously/personally if you care to engage]
You may have seen the regular stream of youtube videos in your feed with the hook that reads something like "humans will be obsolete in two years" or "software development as a career is over".
I disagree, and furthermore, that's a psyop! Don't believe the hype!
You may have seen the endless stream of technical articles here complaining about the craft going out of coding and devs being reduced to AI slop pull request reviewers.
I scoff at these devs, have they no agency? I also choose to believe they are part of the psyop even if they are real people with real experiences because their articles get boosted with a purpose.
And what do I believe the purpose is? What is the psyop? I think it is many-pronged.
We developers are quite powerful in society, and it is useful to humble us from time to time. It is useful to keep us compliant. Having us accept a dire fate makes it easier to tamp down wage inflation (which helps pay the AI tab in the short term, BTW!).
Also, regarding cycles and generations, having AI pump out an ocean of tech debt creates busy work for future generations to unravel. This make-work aimed at maintaining and fixing things is useful in that it keeps people steadily employed and controls the rate of new development and technological advancement.
Sometimes I muse when I hear stories about AI vendors' ability to "turn up/down" the intelligence factor on coding agents. Is this a fine tuning of the slop error factor getting it just where they need it to be?
I observe in my career that getting developer tools paid for by corporations has been a bit like getting blood from a stone. Yet suddenly, corporate america is in a rush to put this super costly _subscription-based_ tool in my hands. What gives?
Yes, latest fad/bubble/craze. A few sillycon valley tech bros are trying to make a computer god superintelligence to worship and control, maybe, ugh I guess probably some of them.
But, from a metaphysical standpoint, one can argue there is a "spirit" to every age. This age's spirit seems obsessed with management. And, there are high level leaders who are obsessed with managing the human population with ever-increasing fidelity. So of course AI will be the latest finance/technology/information system that is released along those lines.
It's your choice how to proceed, as with all things use your free will. I will observe you do everyone you know and all of your descendants the most good if you constantly strive to have the highest aims.
In my opinion, 'slop' creates an unacceptable crisis. Slop will continue the wheel of wasted energy and potential that we are in now. To break this cycle, developers need to be obsessed with controlled code, zero bugs, and human-led software design.
What does any of that mean in practice? How? The answers come from our community, from thought leaders and taste makers. We need to develop industry standards to judge one another by and then hold one another accountable.
As to you personally and your passion problem, I get it. I am feeling the same. I hope you have a small personal project, maybe never to be shared, that you can at least retreat to when your energy is low.
I recently stayed up late and upgraded the build system on mine, just some busy work I knew I needed to get done and which let me ply some new devops techniques I learned. It felt really good to be reminded that I could be productive and clever even in a low energy situation. And my week improved after that.