131–140 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might become cheaper or it might not If it does not, this is going to be first technology in the history of mankind that has not become cheaper. (But anyway, it already costs half compared to last year)
Sure, running an LLM is cheaper, but the way we use LLMs now requires way more tokens than last year.
I wish the people who wrote this let us know what king of codebases they are working on. They seem mostly useless in a sufficiently large codebase especially when they are messy and interactions aren't always obvious. I don't know how much better Claude is than ChatGPT, but I can't get ChatGPT to do much useful with an existing large codebase.
I've been trying Claude on my large code base today. When I give it the requirements I'd give an engineer and so "do it" it just writes garbage that doesn't make sense and doesn't seem to even meet the requirements (if it does I can't follow how - though I'll admit to giving up before I understood what it did, and I didn't try it on a real system). When I forced it to step back and do tiny steps - in TDD write one te…
I also find pointing it to an existing folder full of code that conforms to certain standards can work really well.
> Coding workflow. Given the latest lift in LLM coding capability, like many others I rapidly went from about 80% manual+autocomplete coding and 20% agents in November to 80% agent coding and 20% edits+touchups in December Anyone wondering what exactly is he actually building? What? Where? > The mistakes have changed a lot - they are not simple syntax errors anymore, they are subtle conceptual errors that a slightly…
This is a low quality curmudgeonly comment
> The most common category is that the models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. If current LLMs are ever deployed in systems harboring the big red button, they WILL most definitely somehow press that button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I noticed the same thing, but wasn't able to put it into words before reading that. Been experimenting with LLM-based coding just so I can understand it and talk intelligently about it (instead of just being that grouchy curmudgeon), and the thought in the back of my mind while using Claude Code is always: "I got into programming because I like programming, not whatever this is..." Yes, I'm building stupid things fas…
What I have enjoyed about programming is being able to get the computer to do exactly what I want. The possibilities are bounded by only what I can conceive in my mind. I feel like with AI that can happen faster.
> with AI that can happen faster.
well, not exactly that.
> The most common category is that the models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. If current LLMs are ever deployed in systems harboring the big red button, they WILL most definitely somehow press that button.
If instead we believe in fantasies of a single all-knowing machine god that is 100% correct at all times, then... we really just have ourselves to blame. Might as well just have spammed that button by hand.
I worry about the "brain atrophy" part, as I've felt this too. And not just atrophy, but even moreso I think it's evolving into "complacency". Like there have been multiple times now where I wanted the code to look a certain way, but it kept pulling back to the way it wanted to do things. Like if I had stated certain design goals recently it would adhere to them, but after a few iterations it would forget again and g…
Have to really look out for the crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a low quality curmudgeonly comment
You learned a new adjective? If people move beyond "nice", "mean" and "curmudgeonly" they might even read Shakespeare instead of having an LLM producing a summary.
>Anyone wondering what exactly is he actually building? What? Where?
this is trivially answerable. it seems like they did not do even the slightest bit of research before asking question after question to seem smart and detailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But anyway, it already costs half compared to last year You could not have bought Claude Opus 4.5 at any price one year ago I'm quite certain. The things that were available cost half of what they did then, and there are new things available. These are both true. I'm agreeing with you, to be clear. There are two pieces I expect to continue: inference for existing models will continue to get cheaper. Models will con…
interesting post. i wonder if these people go back and introspect on how incorrect they have been? do they feel the need to address it?
This is harmless when it comes to tech opinions but causes real damage in politics and activism.
People get really attached to ideals and ideas, and keep sticking to those after they fail to work again and again.
I was thinking about this the other day as relates to the DevOps movement.
The DevOps movement started as a way to accelerate and improve the results of devops team dynamics. By changing practices and methods, you get acceleration and improvement. That creates "high-performing teams", which is the team form of a 10x engineer. Whether or not you believe in '10x engineers', a high-performing team is real. You really can make your team deploy faster, with fewer bugs. You have to change how you all work to accomplish it, though.
To get good at using AI for coding, you have to do the same thing: continuous improvement, changing workflows, different designs, development of trust through automation and validation. Just like DevOps, this requires learning brand new concepts, and changing how a whole team works. This didn't get adopted widely with DevOps because nobody wanted to learn new things or change how they work. So it's possible people won't adapt to the "better" way of using AI for coding, even if it would produce a 10x result.
If we want this new way of working to stick, it's going to require education, and a change of engineering culture.