请问HN：在使用人工智能的同时，你是如何保持自己的技能的？
我是一名在[大公司]工作的高级工程师，人工智能工具无处不在。虽然并没有强制要求使用这些工具，但由于它们的可获得性，绝大多数人还是会选择使用。
关于人工智能，社会层面上有很多担忧，但在个人层面上，我开始慢慢感到自己的技能不如以前了。我当然能够做更多的事情，但对事物的理解却变得更少。编程的“提示-然后-审查”循环（如Claude Code、Codex、Pi、OpenCode、Amp等）并没有像自己编写代码那样促进对技能的掌握。当然，你可以说自己是在“更高的抽象层次上思考”。但当这种抽象失败时会发生什么呢？因为抽象往往会失败。
这种技能的消退并不是一个快速的过程。我并不是一夜之间就失去了编程能力。然而，这种感觉就像生锈一样，慢慢侵蚀着基础，直到它们崩溃。
目前，这种工具需要一双熟练的手来正确引导。然而，使用这个工具的过程似乎又在削弱这双熟练的手。我发现这种负反馈循环在软件生计能力和软件质量的广泛影响上都令人非常担忧。
所以，我想问问HN社区。大家是如何保护自己的技能的？尤其是在积极使用人工智能的情况下。
查看原文
I'm a senior engineer at [Big Company], and AI tools are ever-present. There's no mandate that you need to use them, but they are so readily available that most people do anyways.<p>There's a lot of society level concerns with AI, but on a personal level, I'm starting to slowly feel less skilled than I used to be. I can certainly do more, but I understand less. The "Prompt-Then-Review" loop of coding harnesses (Claude Code, Codex, Pi, OpenCode, Amp, etc.) just simply do not encourage mastery in the same way as shaping the code yourself. Sure, you can argue you're "thinking at a higher abstraction". But what happens when that abstraction fails? as abstractions often do.<p>It's not a fast process this skill erasure. I'm not magically losing my ability to code overnight. However, it feels like rust. Slowly eroding the pillars until they give.<p>This tool (currently) needs a skilled hand to guide correctly. However using the tool feels like it degrades the skilled hand. This negative feedback loop I find truly concerning from both the ability to make a living in software and the ramifications on software quality writ large.<p>So, I ask HN. How is the community protecting their skills? especially when actively using AI.