14 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2026
    1. Peter Naur reminded us some decades ago that a program is more than its source code. Rather a program is a theory that lives in the minds of the developer(s) capturing what the program does, how developer intentions are implemented, and how the program can be changed over time. Usually this theory is not just in the minds of one developer but fragments of this theory are distributed across the minds of many, if not thousands, of other developers.

      Peter Naur, Programming as Theory Building 1985 https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6074(85)90032-8

      Programming as theory building 1985 in Zotero

    2. Technical debt lives in the code; cognitive debt lives in developers' minds

      Image putting techdebt and cognitive debt next to each other. Looks very generated btw. Techdebt described as legacy code, quick fixes, buggy logic: messy code & complexity. Cognitive debt as: lost understanding, knowledge gaps, team confusion: overhelmed developers.

    3. the humans involved may have simply lost the plot and may not understand what the program is supposed to do, how their intentions were implemented, or how to possibly change it.

      key imo. generating code / material, can quickly mean loss of overview (I see how that happens in my use of #algogens if I don't explicitly counteract it), uncertainty about how demands were implemented, and thus what entry points for change there are.

    4. communicates the notion that the debt compounded from going fast lives in the brains of the developers and affects their lived experiences and abilities to “go fast” or to make change

      Cognitive debt here described that it comes from going fast during dev, resulting in reduced ability to make changes / go fast in the future, bc of affected experiences and abilities of the people involved.

    1. I've experienced this myself on some of my more ambitious vibe-code-adjacent projects. I've been experimenting with prompting entire new features into existence without reviewing their implementations and, while it works surprisingly well, I've found myself getting lost in my own projects. I no longer have a firm mental model of what they can do and how they work, which means each additional feature becomes harder to reason about, eventually leading me to lose the ability to make confident decisions about where to go next.

      Vibecoding and adjacent projects lead to loosing overview of your own work, no mental model of what you made as you would have otherwise. Extending something becomes harder over time, bc you don't know what you're actually extending from. This is a counter force (not counter argument I think) to the notion of genAI having deterministic automation as endpoint.

    1. This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing.

      This piece does not look at cognitivedebt where I saw it mentioned most (i.e. around the effect of vibecoding), it looks at using LLMs in writing (essays)

  2. Jan 2026
    1. "I think of Cognitive Debt as ‘where we have the answers, but not the thinking that went into producing those answers”. It is a phenomenal largely (but not exclusively) fuelled by the deployment of LLMs at scale. Answers are now much, much cheaper to come by.

      Additionally, I am most interested in exploring Cognitive Debt not from an individual perspective, but from a group one. It is critical to thinking through the implications of using these technologies inside an organisation, or between an organisation and its employees, a government and its citizens, and so on and so forth."

      n:: cognitive debt - [ ] return