Developers discuss the scale of AI usage: is there still a moral controversy over using LLMs extremely sparingly?
Understand this story
A developer who has long been skeptical of AI offered his views on "whether there is an appropriate scale for AI usage": he accepts that apps such as Overcast contain Claude-generated code, but believes that House House's "extremely sparing" use of LLMs in "Big Walk" to handle technical challenges and bugs is still a moral issue, even though less than one millionth of the code in that work was touched by LLMs. He cited Lex Friedman's view, saying that AI lowers the cost of making apps, but does not reduce the work required to make excellent apps.
AI overview based on source reports · Updated 1 days ago
Coverage timeline
Follow the coverage to explore different perspectives.
- Hacker News AIIs there a 'right amount' of AI?
The author argues that while avoiding AI entirely in the software one uses is impractical, indie developers should be warier of LLM-assisted coding than the community currently is, because LLMs have no understanding and delegating more to coding agents erodes developers' own comprehension of their code. He discusses the IGF jurists' refusal to vote for any game using generative AI, House House's disclosure that LLMs touched under a percent of a percent of Big Walk's code, and Marco Arment's enthusiastic use of coding agents in Overcast and Fineliner. He concludes that the least LLM-generated code you can use is always zero, and that thoughtfully crafted apps require a human developer with taste and understanding.
Activity for this story
- Current comparable activity
- 5
- Peak comparable activity
- 10Nov 13 18:00
- Change in the past 24 hours
- -50%
Trends compare the same fully observed participants, which may cover fewer participants than current activity. Move the pointer or tap the chart to inspect hourly activity; use the left and right arrow keys with a keyboard.