[fhd2]

I feel agentic development is a time sink.

Previously, I'd have an idea, sit on it for a while. In most cases, conclude it's not a good idea worth investing in. If I decided to invest, I'd think of a proper strategy to approach it.

With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it, then switch to other work, often abandoning the thing entirely.

I still need to figure out how to deal with that, for now I just time box these sessions.

But I feel I'm trading thinking time for execution time, and understanding time for testing time. I'm not yet convinced I like those tradeoffs.

Edit: Just a clarification: I currently work in two modes, depending on the project. In some, I use agentic development. In most, I still do it "old school". That's what makes the side effects I'm noticing so surprising. Agentic development pulls me down rabbit holes and makes me loose the plot and focus. Traditional development doesn't, its side effects apparently keep me focused and in control.

[energy123]

That's weird, I'm the opposite. Previously I would start coding immediately, because writing the code helps me figure out the what and the how, and because I'd end up with modular/reusable bits that will be helpful later anyway.

Now I sit on an idea for a long time, writing documentation/specs/requirements because I know that the code generation side of things is automated and effortlessly follows from exhaustive requirements.

[sisnxb]

I used to do this, but found scoping my agent usage down to smaller chunks got better results than trying to do it all from the get go. And looking back it makes sense - code is the most expressive form we have to tell the computer what to do, not English.

The size of the chunk varies heavily on what I’m doing ofc.

[jcims]

>With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it, then switch to other work, often abandoning the thing entirely.

How much of this is because you don't trust the result?

I've found this same pattern in myself, and I think the lack of faith that the output is worth asking others to believe in is why it's a throwaway for me. Just yesterday someone mentioned a project underway in a meeting that I had ostensibly solved six months ago, but I didn't even demo it because I didn't have any real confidence in it.

I do find that's changing for myself. I actually did demo something last week that I 'orchestrated into existence' with these tools. In part because the goal of the demo was to share a vision of a target state rather than the product itself. But also because I'm much more confident in the output. In part because the tools are better, but also because I've started to take a more active role in understanding how it works.

Even if the LLMs come to a standstill in their ability to generate code, I think the practice of software development with them will continue to mature to a point where many (including myself) will start to have more confidence in the products.

[rvz]

If you do not know what you want to build, how to ask the AI what you want and are unable to tell what the correct requirements are; then it becomes a waste of time and money.

More importantly, As the problem becomes more complex, it then matters more if you know where the AI falls short.

Case study: Security researchers were having a great time finding vulnerabilities and security holes in Openclaw.

The Openclaw creators had a very limited background in security even when the AI entirely built Openclaw and the authors had to collaborate with the security experts to secure the whole project.

[yason]

> If you do not know what you want to build

That describes the majority of cases actually worth working on as a programmer in the traditional sense of the word. You build something to begin to discover the correct requirements and to picture the real problem domain in question.

[lelanthran]

> With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it, then switch to other work, often abandoning the thing entirely.

My experience with LLMs is that they will call any idea a good idea, one feasible enough to pursue!

Their training to be a people-pleaser overrides almost everything else.

[croisillon]

it might depend how you word it, i specifically asked about a caldav and a firefox sync solution, explaining how much difficulty-adverse i was, and i have been berated both times

[darkwater]

> Previously, I'd have an idea, sit on it for a while.

> With agentic development, I have an idea, waste a few hours chasing it,

What's the difference between these 2 periods? Weren't you wasting time when sitting on it and thinking about your idea?

[latexr]

Sitting on an idea doesn’t have to mean literally sitting and staring at the ceiling, thinking about it. It means you have an idea and let it stew for a while, your mind coming back to it on its own while you’re taking a shower, doing the dishes, going for a walk… The idea which never comes back is the one you abandon and would’ve been a waste of time to pursue. The idea which continues to be interesting and popping into your head is the worthwhile one.

When you jump straight into execution because it’s easy to do so, you lose the distinction.

[shakna]

Sitting on an idea doesn't necessarily mean being inactive. You can think at the same time as doing something else. "Shower thoughts" are often born of that process.

[yieldcrv]

with agentic development, I've finally considered doing open source work for no reason aside from a utility existing

before, I would narrow things down to only the most potentially economically viable, and laugh at ideas guys that were married to the one single idea in their life as if it was their only chance, seemingly not realizing they were competing with people that get multiple ideas a day

back to the aforementioned epiphany, it reminds me of the world of Star Trek where everything was developed for its curiosity and utility instead of money