Laurie Voss argues that while the cost of writing code has fallen dramatically, the costs of reviewing, fixing, and operating software are rising and will continue to do so. She emphasizes that the true expense lies in understanding user needs, precisely defining requirements, and ensuring a pleasant user experience—costs that are unique to each software product and do not scale with reuse. As software demand grows without an upper limit, these user‑centric costs will dominate the overall development effort.
The article discusses how production code generated by Claude, Anthropic’s AI, should meet higher standards than human-written code. Anthropic enforces this through numerous guardrails such as lint rules, extensive testing, Claude-driven end‑to‑end tests, daily fuzzers, automated code and security reviews, and automated refactoring. These measures aim to prevent the code from becoming difficult to maintain.
But then users start to report a weird bug. It's the 4th time your team has been trying to fix it.
The article reflects on the shift in perspective after the release of Fable, a new model that promised to solve many coding challenges at a comparable or lower cost. Prior to Fable, developers felt it was pointless to invest heavily in coding tools or context strategies, as newer models would likely render them obsolete. However, Fable’s performance was so impressive that, despite its high cost, it prompted a reevaluation of how work was distributed across different models such as Opus, 5.6, K3, and GLM.
Simon Willison reflects on the evolving role of software developers in the age of AI, noting that while AI can produce high‑quality code, it also enables poor execution that leads to project failures. He argues that the industry is beginning to recognize the continued need for human collaboration and expertise to truly innovate. The piece highlights the tension between automation and the essential human element in software creation.
The article discusses how computer programming fundamentally involves problem‑solving with computers and managing complexity. It argues that these skills will remain valuable and sustain a viable career even as AI tools become more prevalent.
The article highlights Paul Dix’s astonishment that AI was able to generate one million lines of code and then refine it over several months into a reliable software product now used by millions of developers. Dix argues that this achievement is far more impressive than merely translating code between languages, emphasizing that with a verification system and clear guidance, AI can produce and iteratively improve highly complex, sophisticated software until it functions perfectly.
Simon Willison reflects on how programming used to be a rewarding career, describing it as a job where developers solved complex logic puzzles for high pay and had full control over strategy and timelines. He notes that coding agents and large language models (LLMs) now handle many of these puzzles, offering a "gift that keeps on giving" for those who enjoy building systems without caring deeply about the underlying problems. However, for programmers who found joy in directly solving problems, this shift represents a significant loss.
The article highlights Paul Ford’s observation that web browsers are extremely powerful for building applications, and the cost of leveraging that power is continually decreasing. It emphasizes the growing accessibility and affordability of browser-based development tools.
The article discusses how engineers should view the lack of benefit from current AI tools as a finding rather than a failure. It encourages documenting these observations, sharing them with peers and managers, and actively seeking solutions. By explaining where AI falls short, engineers demonstrate the judgment expected of them.
The article discusses a shift in code review practices, moving from a final gate to continuous review that functions like spellcheck during coding. It highlights how the Claude Code team uses the Claude AI to catch routine mistakes before human reviewers intervene, allowing developers to focus on higher-level issues. The piece references insights from Addy Osmani, Morgan Westlee Lunt, and Qing Wang on this evolving approach.
SF October 14th: A Birds of a Feather Session on Agentic Engineering I'm hosting an evening event with Jesse Vincent in San Francisco on Wednesday 14th October for people who are building weird and in...
Simon Willison reflects on the long history of flawed software development, noting that the proliferation of bad code over the past three decades is now being penalized by the universe. He cites Armin Ronacher’s perspective that the rise of AI, while entertaining, has amplified the consequences of these past mistakes. The piece underscores the growing importance of addressing security and reliability in the age of generative AI.