Gaslight-driven development

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

LLMs Shaping APIs and Developer Behavior

  • Several commenters note that LLMs “hallucinating” APIs is already nudging teams to rename or add endpoints (e.g., adding tx.create because models keep using it).
  • Some see this as positive: if many people and tools are confused, maybe the original naming was poor; aligning with common expectations reduces friction.
  • Others are strongly opposed: changing real systems because a stochastic model confidently invents wrong behavior is seen as “bonkers” and a line they refuse to cross.
  • There’s a middle view: if an LLM effectively acts as a “super‑popular advisor” to most customers, accommodating it might be pragmatic.

Naming, Semantics, and HTTP Codes

  • Debate over correct semantics for “update vs create,” “put vs upsert,” and how APIs should express insert/update behavior.
  • Some argue PUT is inherently “upsert”; others say it implies overwriting and shouldn’t be equated with upsert.
  • Joking proposals to handle LLM‑invented endpoints via new HTTP status codes:
    • “513: Your Coding Assistant Is Wrong”
    • “407 Hallucination”
    • Calls to (mis)use 418 “I’m a teapot” spark a subthread about being precise with status codes versus having fun.

Autonomy vs Safety: Lane-Assist Analogy

  • Lane‑keeping assist is used as an analogy: some see it as a “misfeature” that punishes drivers and can be dangerous in edge cases (construction, emergencies).
  • Others counter that using turn signals avoids issues and that systemic safety and reduced collisions outweigh individual “freedoms.”
  • Broader worry: similar mechanisms plus LLMs could evolve into moral/legal enforcement systems that warn, block, or report users.

Critique of the Article’s Thesis

  • Some reject the premise that “we are serving the machines,” arguing all constraints (account creation, email confirmation) are human design choices.
  • Others riff philosophically: we may be serving not machines per se but the wider simulation/“spectacle” of bureaucratic and technical systems.

Site UX and Distraction

  • The animated “presence” bar showing live readers is widely criticized as unreadable, especially for people with ADHD; many close the page immediately or use reader mode.
  • Others share hacks/bookmarklets (kill sticky/fixed elements) or note browser features to remove distractions.
  • A minority find the feature amusing or interesting (e.g., seeing countries), but most consider it an aggressive UX misstep.