Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The headline is clickbait-y but I think the article is well articulated. I found the "What actually helped" helpful too.
 help



Article is mostly GPT vomit after a couple bullet pints. If it’s not as easy for others to tell I’ll stay my blade runner style shop that tells who NOT to hire

I'd personally rethink about applying some advice in that section. Here's my take.

> Time-boxing AI sessions.

Unless you are a full-time vibe coder, you already wouldn't be using AI all the time. But time boxing it feels artificial, if it's able to make good and real progress (not unmaintainable slop).

> Separating AI time from thinking time.

My usage of AI involves doing a lot of thinking, either collaboratively within a chat, or by myself while it's doing some agentic loop.

> Accepting 70% from AI.

This is a confusing statement. 70% what? What does 70% usable even mean? If it means around 70% of features work and other 30% is broken, perhaps AI shouldn't be used for those 30% in the first place.

> Being strategic about the hype cycle.

Hype cycles have always been a thing. It's good for mind in general to avoid them.

> Logging where AI helps and where it doesn't.

I do most of this logging in my agent md files instead of a separate log. Also after a bit my memory picks it up really quickly what AI can do and what it can't. I assume this is a natural process for many fellow engineers.

> Not reviewing everything AI produces.

If you are shipping in an insane speed, this is just an expected outcome, not an advice you can follow.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: