Nothing that is possible is "too hard" if you're willing to put in some effort. The only question is whether you will learn to do it, or press a button, hope the LLM did it well, and let it forever remain "too hard."
Honestly, without judgment, I think this is just a fundamental difference in how people approach their craft. You either want to be capable yourself or you just want the results.
The fixation with AI really harms the signal-to-noise ratio on HN lately. The author of this article very clearly used an LLM to generate much of it, which makes it read like the clickbait you see a ton of on LinkedIn. Then a commenter posts an LLM-generated bullet list summary of the LLM-generated article, which really adds nothing to the discussion.
Ultimately the author had some simple ideas that are worth sharing and discussing, but they're hidden behind so much non-additive slop.
In the previous Trump term "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity."
Conservatives in the past have also tried to belittle research grants to justify eliminating them, such as "studying X about fruit flies." It might sound silly to a lay person but drosophila is an incredibly important model organism from which many discoveries have come.
The problem is a highly political, often careless or incompetent, and sometimes blatantly corrupt administration taking a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to so-called "waste."
> "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity."
Do you have a source for this? How can you prove it was simply because it was "diversity related" and not because it someone, somewhere determined the budget needed to be cut because the spending was wasteful?
As far as I can tell, the budget never passed, so we have no way to know one way or another the effects.
I have never seen a government entity claim that cutting their budget wouldn't be catastrophic.
>One environmental researcher NPR spoke to, whose employer receives federal funding, confirmed that they have been advised to avoid the terms "climate change," "sustainable" and "sustainability." Even "biodiversity" is of concern to some of their colleagues because it includes the word "diversity."
(Please don't just respond to the quote - lots of context in the full article.)
I've noticed AI generated docs frequently contain bulleted or numbered lists of trivialities, like file names - AI loves describing "architecture" by listing files with a 5 word summary of what they do which is probably not much more informative than the file name. Superficially it looks like it might be useful, but it doesn't contribute any actually useful context and has very low information density.
You can generate boilerplate without AI and whenever there's a significant amount of boilerplate needed there should be a (non-AI) generation tool to go with it. Deterministic code generation is a lot easier to have confidence in than LLM output.
>I don't know why someone would employ a dev working in such an inefficient way in 2025.
It amazes me how fast the hype has taken off. There is no credible evidence that, for experienced devs, working with AI coding tools makes you significantly more productive.
Devs (like yourself) might generate scaffolding for a greenfield project very quickly and be amazed and claim they're more productive, but I don't think that is evidence that an experienced developer will actually be more productive.
Honestly, project scaffolding is such a small part of the job. I spend a lot more time reading, designing, thinking critically about, reviewing changes to, and generally maintaining code than I do creating greenfield projects or writing boilerplate. For all of these tasks having actually written the code myself gives me an advantage. I don't believe today's tools are a net positive.
reply