高塔持续耸立
The Tower Keeps Rising

原始链接: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/7/13/the-tower-keeps-rising/

以巴别塔为喻,本文探讨了人工智能辅助软件开发的悖论。从历史上看,集体进步的“源代码”正是人类协作产生的摩擦力——即对齐思维模型所需的沟通成本。这种摩擦力虽然缓慢,却是一种同步机制,确保了人们对系统架构有着共同的理解。 人工智能体消除了这种摩擦,使个人无需咨询他人即可进行快速、孤立的更改。虽然这提高了个人生产力,却威胁到了代码库的“通用语言”——即关于系统如何运作以及为何这样运作的默契共识。与圣经中语言失落导致工程停滞的巴别塔不同,人工智能辅助开发允许这座塔在我们的集体理解逐渐消融的同时继续拔地而起。我们正在构建无人能完全理解的系统,制造出一种“感性编码”(vibecoded)的混乱,代码库在没有统一架构愿景的情况下不断扩张。由于系统不会立即崩溃,我们依然迷失方向,未曾察觉人类协作的基石已被自动化、碎片化的构建所取代。

Hacker News 最新 | 过往 | 评论 | 提问 | 展示 | 招聘 | 提交 登录 这座塔仍在不断升高 (pocoo.org) 9 分,发布者:cdrnsf,33 分钟前 | 隐藏 | 过往 | 收藏 | 2 条评论 帮助 prymitive 4 分钟前 | 下一条 [–] 过去,进行大规模重构需要充分的理由,因为这通常涉及繁重的工作。现在,如果你的提示词足够模糊,且不去仔细审查代码,AI 代理可以重写你一半的代码。因此,一个程序的“灵魂”每天都可能发生剧变。这既很棒,也很糟糕。 回复 conartist6 3 分钟前 | 上一条 [–] 它真的在不断升高吗?我对技术最美好的回忆很多都来自过去…… 回复 考虑申请 YC 2026 年秋季批次!申请截止日期为 7 月 27 日。 指南 | 常见问题 | 列表 | API | 安全 | 法律 | 申请 YC | 联系 搜索:
相关文章

原文

written on July 13, 2026

I feel that some vibecoded software changes somewhat randomly and unexpectedly. That made me think about Bruegel’s “The Tower of Babel” which shows an already quite chaotic depiction of the Tower of Babel. The story is usually told as one about pride and ambition and ultimately why people no longer speak the same language. But it is also a story about the unity that makes technological progress work.

The text begins with a technology upgrade:

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

They use it for a civilizational project:

let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven

But when God assesses the situation the bricks are not what concern him:

the people is one, and they have all one language, […] and now nothing will be restrained from them.

The source of their power is coordination. They share a language and with that shared language they can combine their work into something no one of them could build alone. God does not take away the bricks or their knowledge of how to make them. He takes away their ability to understand one another, and construction stops.

There is the appealing idea that AI-assisted programming means better tools which lets us build more ambitious software. That is certainly true at the level of the individual and without doubt a developer with an agent will be dramatically more capable of changing a codebase. But large software projects have never been limited only by how quickly an individual can produce code. They are limited by how well people can coordinate their understanding of the system they are changing.

The shared language of a software project is not English or Python but it is the common understanding of what its concepts mean, where the boundaries are, which invariants matter, who owns what, and why the system has the shape it does. This language is rarely written down in one place. It lives partly in documentation and code, but also in code review, conversations, arguments, and the experience of having to explain a change to somebody else.

Before agents, some of this shared understanding was maintained by friction. If I wanted to change your storage layer, I usually had to read your code, ask you questions, and perhaps coordinate with another team whose service depended on it. This was slow, and much of that slowness was waste but not all of it was. Some of it was the process by which your understanding became mine, and by which both of us discovered whether we still agreed about how the system worked. This friction synchronizes people.

Agents remove much of that friction. I can ask an agent to add OAuth, you can ask one to add caching, and somebody else can ask one to rebuild the database from first principles and make the UI pink. Each change can be reasonable in isolation. The code can compile, the tests can pass, and the explanations can be generated on demand. None of us necessarily has to talk to the others, or even acquire the part of the shared model that the change once would have forced us to learn.

As I said many times before: agents do not feel pain, only humans do. Agents now let us act in parts of the system where we would previously have needed other people and in code bases where the people would have revolved.

When I look at some vibecoded scaled-up projects the codebases become Babel not because nobody can communicate, but because nobody needs to. Every developer has a tireless translator that can explain a corner of the tower and make whatever local alteration they ask of it. The changes keep landing, even as the architectural language that would let the humans reason about them together disappears.

But it’s not the biblical story. At Babel, the loss of common language stops construction whereas in AI-assisted engineering, construction can continue after shared understanding has already collapsed. The lack of an immediate failure is what makes it curious and a bit disorienting. The tower does not fall, and so we do not notice what was lost. It just keeps rising.

This entry was tagged ai and thoughts

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com