Like, one of the most fundamental basics of 65c816 is to know exactly how your indexing is being done, and that it doesn’t change based on the accumulator or index register size!! Literally within 10 minutes playing with the language you find that out.

And I think that has to be so much worse for functional programs. At least a bad HTML page is really just bad for that one site.

I had my computer writing all of my boiler-plate code back in 2001.

Computer-assisted coding isn't particularly new.
Folks tell me how incredibly different it is this time, which is valid. But, of course, most of the folks telling me that don't know how impressive my code assist tooling was in 2001.

To me, the exciting impact is software preservation for history. I suspect that we lose some little piece of interesting source code every day due to a combination of licensing hell and forgetfulness.

I welcome better tools to restore lost code from whatever binaries remain.

I know that the current unsustainable subsidies will end, but with the right experts in place, the same technique should be possible to do slower on reasonably priced hardware.

Some of those attempts were successful, many weren't & were posted as "pls tell me what I'm doing wrong", many are shitposts & some are so wrong they barely qualify as code

The AI can't discriminate the good code from the bad

The AI hoovers them all up & extrudes a statistical average which has more chance of being bollocks than being right

Perhaps slightly a tangent, but it really makes me think about how much people need to remember that the slop side of the fight are, in general, lying liars who lie... even when something seems impressive at first glance, it's just all so much slight of hard.

I can write a tight, neatly-coded set of instructions for a specific task which is very specific in what inputs it accepts and in what outputs it returns.

I can write these instructions such that they are not single-purpose, and can then be used for more than one fixed set of inputs and one set of outputs. This is what is called 'object-oriented programming'. The set of instructions can then be used for multiple purposes within the code and called repeatedly in different contexts.

I can further optimize any sets of code such that the end result of my work is not merely 'input x -> output y', but that it operates efficiently and well.

To call the output of AI equivalent to what I do in these instances is not merely insulting, it is murderous.

https://momo5502.com/posts/2026-10-09-game-decompilation/

I can't find some of the more impressive stuff I saw before (bad sign for my memory, better sign for state of things), but decomping seems like it's in the sweet spot of what LLMs should theoretically be able to do. Even if it takes a lot of tokens/iterations at the moment (700 billion tokens for this article's project), because the output can be programmatically verified as correct, there seems to be a path to viability here that isn't just smoke and mirrors.

... anyone would think it was about generating the code, the way these maniacs run around and complain about AI Gonna Take Yer Jerbs

I know some of the “decomps” like for Photoshop weren’t really decomps, but it seems there’s enough actual utility to be concerned with while LLMs are still being subsidized by capital.

Anyway, coding itself requires the understanding of a subject and then formulating code that reflects it. And most LLM users also need to get the understanding part. That's the hard part.