I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
maxemitchell.com
I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
1–10 of 291 posts
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#2[deleted]
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#3[deleted]
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#4It's an interesting review but I really dislike this type of techno-utopian determinism: "When models inevitably improve..." Says who? How is it inevitable? What if they've actually reached their limits by now?
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#5> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation.
Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons.
> When models inevitably improve, you could connect the latest version and regenerate the entire codebase with enhanced capability.
How would you know if the code was better or worse if it was never committed? How do you audit for security vulnerabilities or debug with no source code?
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#6It's an interesting review but I really dislike this type of techno-utopian determinism: "When models inevitably improve..." Says who? How is it inevitable? What if they've actually reached their limits by now?
Models are improving every day. People are figuring out thousands of different optimizations to training and to hardware efficiency. The idea that right now in early June 2025 is when improvement stops beggars belief. We might be approaching a limit, but that's going to be a sigmoid curve, not a sudden halt in advancement.
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#7> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation. Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons. > When models ine…
There are lots of reasons not to do it. But if LLMs get good enough that it works consistently people will do it anyway.
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#8It's an interesting review but I really dislike this type of techno-utopian determinism: "When models inevitably improve..." Says who? How is it inevitable? What if they've actually reached their limits by now?
Models have improved significantly over the last 3 months. Yet people have been saying 'What if they've actually reached their limits by now?' for pushing 3 years.
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#9> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation. Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons. > When models ine…
There are lots of reasons not to do it. But if LLMs get good enough that it works consistently people will do it anyway.
What will people call it when coders rely on vibes even more than vibe coding?
Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits
#10It's an interesting review but I really dislike this type of techno-utopian determinism: "When models inevitably improve..." Says who? How is it inevitable? What if they've actually reached their limits by now?
It is "inevitable" in the sense that in 99% of the cases, tomorrow is just like yesterday.
LLMs have been continually improving for years now. The surprising thing would be them not improving further. And if you follow the research even remotely, you know they'll improve for a while, because not all of the breakthroughs have landed in commercial models yet.
It's not "techno-utopian determinism". It's a clearly visible trajectory.
Meanwhile, if they didn't improve, it wouldn't make a significant change to the overall observations. It's picking a minor nit.
The observation that strict prompt adherence plus prompt archival could shift how we program is both true, and it's a phenomenon we observed several times in the past. Nobody keeps the assembly output from the compiler around anymore, either.
There's definitely valid criticism to the passage, and it's overly optimistic - in that most non-trivial prompts are still underspecified and have multiple possible implementations, not all correct. That's both a more useful criticism, and not tied to LLM improvements at all.