The 'make it go' people that I worked with usually didn't understand many of the underlying code, and the 'craft' people always need to fix it.

Craft people aren't losing anything. If anything, they are more valuable because they need to fix the slopware written by AI and the 'make it go' developers.

To use an analogy, back in the days of film cameras and before 1 hour labs, the "craftsman" photographer would carefully frame the shot, carefully setting the exposure, aperture and focus. The most meticulous would take notes in a notebook. There were only 36 frames to a roll of film and all going well, the photographer had to wait a couple of days to get back the proof sheet. Those were the days when expert photographers were commissioned to take photos for special events, etc.

These days, everybody is an expert photographer, taking thousands of irrelevant photos with their smartphones. The volume of photos has exploded, the quality of the best has minimally changed (i.e. before being photoshopped, etc.)

The current crop of AI-aided tools are comparable to the early digital cameras in phones.

I've been feeling the craft side of this for the last few years. My education is in Fine Art and I am a self taught UI developer. To me this was a craft of making the code do what the designer envisioned and working with creatives to create engaging and unique interfaces. Slowly but surely "standardization" eroded this via bootstrap and material UI and interfaces lost that spark of creativity. This was the beginning of thinking of sites as products in my mind. LLMs are just the nail in this coffin. Since tools like Claude Code and Cursor have entered the market, I don't do tech in my free time anymore. I don't enjoy it now. I just use the LLM at work like the business dictates (and monitors) then clock out promptly at 5:00.

Craft has survived every wave of automation by retreating into niches where the process itself is visible and valued — luthiers, watchmakers, hand bookbinders. The question with software is whether any such niche can survive when the output of handcrafted and AI-generated code is functionally indistingushable to most consumers.

There is indeed a painful dissonance here. I like this new world, but feel sorrow for the loss of something. I try to remember how empowering AI is. It is already allowing millions of people to finally use the devices they've been sitting in front of all these years. No longer do they have to feel constrained by software creators who have made choices for them. Now it is their tool through-and-through, and they can construct software on-the-fly to match their needs precisely. They have been buying computers with both hands tied behind their backs. Now they are in control.

I do hand tool woodworking as a hobby. Aside from rough dimensioning, all the final cuts, planing, mortising, carving, dove tails etc are done by hand. Sometimes using tools over 100yrs old, not out of some fetish for the past, they are just better and cheaper than hand tools today.

It takes forever but I want to work the wood and develop actual skill. I don't want to just push wood through a series of saws, sanders, jigs and other machines. It has also made me much better at building “we need this now” type things (decks, cabinets etc) with power tools in general. I am much more precise, sensitive, and detail oriented.

I hope and feel there is something similar with coding and LLMs. A way to repurpose that hard earned sensitivity and recover some of the zen aspects as well. I am still figuring that out, part of it has been tiring but honestly a lot of it has made programming more fun too.

One solution: do NOT just program for work. If it's not work related - where management can dictate how you work - you can whatever you want, and if what you want is to keep writing software and not outsource your brain to an AI, absolutely do so.

Using an LLM for coding is like using a Electric shaver. It is unpredictable and you have to keep going over the same area in hopes that it will pick up the remaining few stubs of hair. Boring, irritating but very convenient.

Use a straight razor, which is predictable and you feel time flying and you end up with perfect shave.

i think anyone who feels dispossessed from the advance of technology should rekindle that spirit of hands-on adventure by looking at clay pots at the museum.

the souls of a thousand hours sit there behind glass and valued for their richness and simplicity, against all odds, and people to this day carry on those traditions to improve the art.

did the soul of pottery die with the industrial revolution? will your hand code? it won’t be for everyone, but it’s there for you.

find a book by Soetsu Yanagi on the subject of “min gei” and it will help you.

undefined

I think this article misses a potential connection in the capitalist critique of LLMs to correlate this to the equivalent "industrialization" of coding. When a craft becomes industrialized, as is talked about here, you see the divergence in hobbyists and mass production.

I think because of the uniqueness or newness of the craft of programming - this shift hadn't actually occurred and you were seeing hobbyist programmers landing jobs and being able to output professional code by crafting it thoughtfully as there wasn't a major output difference previously. Now we are seeing that difference.

Food for thought, interesting article!

There's another camp that don't care about the craft AND also don't care about the product. This camp, wielding power of AI, is making life worse for the other two camps. I've been getting so many code reviews that are generated by AI, but the author does not even has the decency to self review the generated code before they send out pull requests. It feels like an insult sometimes. For example, unit tests that basically assert if `a = 1` after setting a to 1.

Every PR now has lots of unit tests, but they test the implementation details, not the spec. So now every change that breaks their implementation details causes false positive test failures. This creates a self enforcing negative loop. Every PR now comes with tons of unit test fixes.

People start responding to PR comments with something along the line of: I ask AI but it was not able to solve the problem, if you have a solution, LMK. Or another variant I see often is: I think this is wrong, but AI says this is fine, so I'll leave it as is.

I see craft lovers or product people using AI effectively. I use AI daily too. But the above camp is making my day to day job sometimes unbearable.

It’s called karma?

We, software developers, as a profession took over countless crafts. It started with people doing calculations by hand, then moved on to people typing on typewriters and continued from there. People used to edit films with scissors and scotch tape. People used to place lead fonts on a matrix to print news articles. Databases used to be little cards made carefully by people whose job it was to organize and modify them. It’s a bit indecent for a developer to complain that LLMs took away the pleasure of molding a clay made of bits, while the robots we enabled to build took the actual clay off of potmakers actual hands.

And what the author forgets to mention is that we got it good. Oh boy. As a software developer, I can work in any field I want. I started on video compression. I moved to finance. I make games in my spare time. I make plugins for music. And I get to be paid way more than my neighbor who’s a heart surgeon. I can work remotely 100%. I can go to a nice beach in Thailand, work 2 hours in the morning and enjoy the rest of the day, and still make more than the median salary in France, where I live.

The grief is not the loss of the craft alone, it’s the loss of that craft that paid for your house.

As they said: software is eating the world. Well, it is now eating itself. It’s only fair.

The author is right though, human societies need to ask themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice all the crafts on the altar of productivity and convenience.

The Amish decided they didn’t want to. It’s a bit of a weird choice, but it is a choice.

I don’t think this split is fundamental or permanent.

Look at photography.

You have both - the point and shoot people and the ones that use photography as a craft.

And I am seeing that with LLMs as well. You do have craft people that find joy in figuring out craft the perfect one shot prompt or create a system that coordinates a bunch of agents.

That is also craft, but like photography, craft with a more capable tool.

The "it's my craft" developers seem to often disparage the "it's a means to an end" people as not being good at programming.

These kind of inevitability articles always citing the same bloggers are just there to support AI. They never address:

- Real developers like Rob Pike who hate AI.

- The IP theft that powers the models.

- The actual useful output of LLMs that is very low.

- The fact that 99.9999% of useful software was produced before AI.

- The fact that "nostalgic developers" are not interested in "writing" code, but understanding algorithms and creating beauty.

These articles lie by omission, direct your attention to the points they want you to discuss, present false dichotomies and are generally deceptive. If these people win, we are in for a horrible future.

This is probably contrary to conventional wisdom (esp among the startup/VC crowd) but: there are very few scenarios where how quickly you build something matters more than the quality of what you build.

The AI coding era has brought about an unhealthy obsession with speed of software dev (where "speed" is often measured by fallacious metrics like LOC pushed per day, but that's tangential). And it's obvious why, this is the main commercial value proposition (if you can build 2x faster, you need 50% as many devs).

Except that the speed only comes "for free" until a certain point. Beyond that point, you're trading off quality for more speed, and this trade is almost never worth it. If it takes you 6 months to handcraft a high quality version of your product (with selective AI assistance only until the boundary where it's not eating quality), almost always this is a better approach than banging out some heavily vibe/agent-coded crap in 1 month.

I guess I’m not the target audience but the flood of articles about craft or “deep blue” feel like a psyop.

When the middle class disappears and your comfortable salary is replaced by, at best, a $1000/mo UBI (that’s 12k per year by the way) most people won’t have time to think or care about this nonsense

Should we stop protesting the change and just accept it and adapt?

Craft is caring about the x in y = mx + b, while the so called "it's a means to an end" care about the y.

The difference between "craft lovers" and "doers" is that one operates at a better fitting abstraction (that is more aligned to the values of capitalism).

You can say "doers" are just "craft lovers" in and of itself - there is little distinction between them - this is just reiterating the change from binary to high level languages.

> Craft-lovers and make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical.

I do not agree with this assertion and I don't know why I don't see more pushback against it, neither here nor in the comments for the original post.

If you're a "craft-lover" sitting next to and working with a "make-it-go person", odds are you will be very much aware of it. Even non-technical leadership is likely to be able to notice it if they're perceptive enough.

The author conflates two paradigms: The first is one of a child learning BASIC not for beauty but for making things happen on the screen. The second is an adult producing software not because he enjoys the act, challenge and workflow, but for shipping software.

I don’t see any difference between the child learning BASIC for its beauty and the chase to make things happen on the screen. Secondly, there is a very profound difference between a child creating and an adult creating for profit. The profit motive changes everything, even for someone “doing it for the love of it.”

>The market is penalizing them for it.

I don't like this framing. Does the market penalize people for going to see a movie or going skiing? The most effective way for someone to make money and someone's hobbies usually do not overlap and when they do turning a hobby into a job often results in one growing to hate the hobby.

It seems like this is a Marxist that is recycling his posts through an LLM. This other post of his is eerily similar:

https://writings.hongminhee.org/2026/02/acting-materialistic...

[dead]

I guess there's a quota on HN where every day, some dev has to whinge about how AI is ruining The Way It Used To Be.

How is this post different than dozens that have come before it?

It's the same gnashing of teeth, just with different analogies each time.

One craft is automated and a new one is just beginning.

Building AI agents is really fun and the problem of having them be reliable adaptable efficient is actually really challenging and I'm having a lot of fun with it trying to figure it out.

To me it's a lot like factorio or my personal favorite Dyson sphere program where at first you do everything by hand and then you automate and then you automate the automation.

For the first time in human history we can automate intelligence with a computer but just because we can automate it doesn't mean all the good automation is good and we need engineers who can figure out how to automate it reliably scale it deploy it maintain it.

And yes eventually we will automate the automation too.

All the whingers about AI - if it is as bad as you say, then you don't have a problem

On the other hand, if it is not, then stop wasting effort arguing against the inevitable and use that effort to get ahead of the curve.

Either way, whinging about it is the least effective use of your skills and time.