煎牛排几乎不需要什么技巧。
Software development with AI is starting to feel like cooking steak

原始链接: https://blog.sydorets.com/en/posts/almost-no-skill-required-to-cook-a-steak/

现代软件开发正如烹饪牛排:虽然任何人都能利用人工智能做出“勉强能吃”的东西,但要达到始终如一的品质,仍需要深厚的专业知识。 目前,许多开发者将人工智能视为一台“牛排机”,寄望于它能在无需理解底层流程的情况下交付完美成果。然而,人工智能缺乏真正的判断力;它只是盲目地遵循指令,往往导致产出看起来精美却存在缺陷。当我们把这一过程外包给所谓的“优质”人工智能工具或代理机构时,得到的往往只是我们自己也能做出的平庸且同质化的结果。 解决之道并非抛弃人工智能,而是停止将其作为技能的替代品。人工智能是实现速度和自动化的有效工具,但它无法取代开发者的直觉或定义真正品质的能力。要构建真正有意义的软件,你必须掌握基础知识,理解代码背后的“为什么”和“怎么做”。通过精通你的技艺,你可以利用人工智能来处理繁重的工作,同时保持必要的判断力,以确保最终产品符合你的标准。归根结底,你必须成为主厨,而不仅仅是食客。

这篇 Hacker News 帖子讨论了一篇将人工智能软件开发与煎牛排过程进行对比的博文。作者认为,正如烹饪一样,人工智能可以产出“牛排”(代码),但要获得高质量的结果,需要具备引导过程并识别平庸的“品味”、判断力和专业知识。 这一类比在评论区引发了热烈的离题辩论,评论者们大多忽略了人工智能这一核心,转而对作者的烹饪观点进行了批判。讨论的要点包括: * **烹饪辩论:** 用户认为,借助肉类温度计和反向煎烤技术等基本工具,牛排实际上是最容易掌握的菜肴之一。许多人认为作者所说的“简单”平底锅煎法存在缺陷,这导致了一场关于烹饪技巧的漫长交流,大家还就“真空低温烹饪”是否作弊以及如何实现完美的焦化效果展开了讨论。 * **人工智能比喻:** 一些用户认同其核心前提,即人工智能是提高产量的强大工具,但缺乏经验丰富的工程师所具备的“品味”和架构判断力。另一些人则反驳称,对于大多数商业需求而言,“氛围编程”(vibe coding)已足够,因为目标是功能性、“足够好”的软件,而非匠人级的完美。 * **挫败感:** 许多参与者对近期涌入的人工智能相关内容以及原帖“粗制滥造”的性质表示厌倦,更倾向于将对话引向实用的、非人工智能的讨论。
相关文章

原文

Cooking a steak requires almost no skill.

Put it in a hot pan, wait a little, flip it, and eventually you’ll have something technically edible. But a genuinely good steak, medium-rare from edge to edge, browned properly, seasoned right, consistently delicious, is a different matter entirely.

Software development with AI is starting to feel much the same.

We build nonstop now. With AI, without AI, during the commute, on the toilet, probably in our sleep. We create agents, harnesses, tools, skills, prompts, feedback loops, elaborate workflows. Then we throw everything at a model and hope it gives us what we imagined, without ever having to understand how any of it actually works.

And what do we want?

We want the perfect steak.

We want software that works, looks good, feels polished, and arrives exactly as we imagined it. Most of all, we want the same result every time.

Do we get it?

Not every time. Not even close to every time.

Sometimes the model hands us something surprisingly good. Other times it serves up charcoal with a sprig of thyme on top and calls it medium-rare, completely confident in the lie.

So what do we do?

We go to a restaurant.

We pay for a premium AI product, hire an agency, subscribe to another coding assistant, jump to a new framework promising professional results. We hope someone else already solved the problem for us. Sometimes they have. Quite often, they haven’t.

That leaves two choices: learn to cook properly ourselves, or keep asking friends for restaurant recommendations while preparing our wallets for the next expensive disappointment.

Most of us want to build something we care about with AI without getting lost in the implementation details. We want to treat it like a professional chef working in our own kitchen: tell it what we want, step away, come back when dinner’s ready.

But AI isn’t a chef. At best, it’s a steak machine.

It can follow a recipe. Watch the temperature, flip at the right moment, drop in the butter. Give it enough tools and instructions and it’ll repeat that process fast, at enormous scale. What it doesn’t do is know what you actually want.

It can’t see the picture in your head unless you translate it into requirements, constraints, examples, tests, feedback. And even then, it’s boxed in by its own capabilities, its context window, the quality of the system wrapped around it. You can stand next to the machine and correct it every thirty seconds. That might help. It won’t turn the machine into a Michelin-starred chef.

Eventually, frustrated, you decide to just pay for the dream steak.

You pick the expensive restaurant. Sit down, study the menu, finally, you can order with real confidence. You wait for the first bite.

The plate arrives.

Same burnt steak you made at home.

Why? Because every restaurant in the city hired the same AI cook.

“Cost optimization,” management says. “Most people won’t notice.”

And they’re probably right. Most people won’t. Most of the time, software only has to be acceptable. Customers tolerate weird interfaces, pointless features, strange bugs, systems held together by generated code nobody actually understands.

But you’ll notice.

You’ll notice because this was something you actually wanted to make.

So you go home disappointed, hungry, a little embarrassed, and pull the cookbook off the shelf. There’s only one option left: learn to cook.

You learn what heat actually does. Which pan matters and why. Why thickness matters, why resting matters, why a timer alone was never going to save you. You ruin a few more dinners. Then you try again. And again.

Eventually you stop depending on luck, you learned it the hard way.

Software works the same way.

AI can make you faster. It automates the repetitive stuff, spits out a starting point, explains code, helps you poke at ideas. What it can’t do is replace your judgment. It can’t define quality for you, can’t decide which tradeoffs are acceptable, can’t always catch the moment when something is technically correct but wrong in every way that matters.

To build good software with AI, you still have to understand software.

You need to know what you’re actually asking for, how to judge what comes back, and when the machine is just confidently serving you charcoal.

Keep learning. Keep building. Keep failing. Do that until you can produce the result you want instead of hoping to stumble into it.

Then get good enough to open your own small restaurant.

Then hire a few AI cooks. Most people still won’t notice the difference.

But you will.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com