But then users start to report a weird bug. It's the 4th time your team has been trying to fix it.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Simon Willison.
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.
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.
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.
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...
The article recounts a challenging debug session that was significantly aided by an AI assistant. Despite the AI initially claiming the problem was unsolvable and suggesting a report be written instead, it persisted, adding debug code and analyzing it as the author pushed forward. Ultimately, the author credits the AI with writing the commit message for the fix.
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.