Reposted by Jonathan Anderson
Here's what I actually think these incidents reveal (instead of a rogue AI terminator situation):
Much of the infra we expect to be hardened is actually being held together by glue and popsicle sticks.
Jonathan Anderson
@trombonehero.bsky.social
563 followers 795 following 1K posts
Associate Professor. Computer Security. Sometimes grumpy (but I repeat myself).
 expanded into a full-length post:
… and for a long time I didn't need a post like the one I'm about to write. If someone brought up the idea of generating code from specifications I'd share the above image with them and that would usually do the trick.
However, agentic coding advocates claim to have found a way to defy gravity and generate code purely from specification documents. Moreover, they've also muddied the waters enough that I believe the above comic strip warrants additional commentary for why their claims are misleading.
In my experience their advocacy is rooted in two common misconceptions:
- ***Misconception 1:** specification documents are simpler than the
corresponding code*
They lean on this misconception when marketing agentic coding to believers who think of agentic coding as the next generation of outsourcing. They dream of engineers being turned into managers who author specification documents which they farm out to a team of agents to do the work, which only works if it's cheaper to specify the work than to do the work.
- ***Misconception 2:** specification work is more thoughtful tham coding work*
They lean on this misconception when marketing agentic coding to skeptics concerned that agentic coding will produce unmaintainable slop. The argument is that filtering the work through a specification document will improve quality and promote better engineering practices.
I'll break down why I believe those are misconceptions using a concrete
example.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6ouaxjxgcbwzw6porooiafil/bafkreiasrhxo4wthywnve4lqddqlcvan26qu6wjmhh7ozgrqumeg4342te)