71–80 of 657 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this the attitude when it comes to AI? Can you imagine someone saying “please provide your code” when they claim that Rust sped up their work repo or typescript reduced errors in production?
Yes, I can absolutely imagine that.
I work at a FAANG. Professionally, I have had almost no luck with it, outside of summarizing design docs or literally just finding something in the code that a simple search might not find: such is this team's code that does X? I am yet to successfully prompt it and get a working commit. Further, I will add that I also don't know any ICs personally who have successfully used it. Though, there's endless posts of peopl…
For those of you for who it is working: show your code, please.
https://github.com/sroerick/pakkun
It's git for ETL. I haven't looked at the code, but I've been using it pretty effectively for the last week or two. I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending it to anybody else, but it was basically one-shotted. I've been dogfooding it on a number of projects, had the LLM iterate on it a bit, and I'm generally very happy with the ergonomics.
It has made my job an awful slog, and my personal projects move faster. At work, the devs up the chain now do everything with AI – not just coding – then task me with cleaning it up. It is painful and time consuming, the code base is a mess. In one case I had to merge a feature from one team into the main code base, but the feature was AI coded so it did not obey the API design of the main project. It also included a…
The majority of code I've written since November 2025 has been created using agents, as opposed to me typing code into a text editor. More than half of that has been done from my iPhone via Claude Code for web (bad name, great software.) I'm enjoying myself so much . Projects I've been thinking about for years are now a couple of hours of hacking around. I'm readjusting my mental model of what's possible as a single…
It has made my job an awful slog, and my personal projects move faster. At work, the devs up the chain now do everything with AI – not just coding – then task me with cleaning it up. It is painful and time consuming, the code base is a mess. In one case I had to merge a feature from one team into the main code base, but the feature was AI coded so it did not obey the API design of the main project. It also included a…
The hell you are playing hero for? Delegate the choice to manager: ruin the codebase or allocate two weeks for clean-up - their choice. If the magical AI team claim they can do integration faster - let them.
Some senior people that were in the AI pilot, have been using this for a while, and are very into it claimed that it can open PRs autonomously with minimum input or supervision (with a ton of MD files and skills in repos with clear architecture standards). I couldn't replicate this yet.
I'm objectively happy to have access to this tool, it feels like a cheat code sometimes. I can research things in the codebase so fast, or update tests and glue code so quickly that my life is objectively better. If the change is small or a simple bugfix it can truly do it autonomously quicker than me. It does make me lazier though, sometimes it's just easier to fire up claude than to focus and do it by myself.
I'm careful to not overuse it mostly to not reach the montlhy cap, so that I can "keep it" if something urgent or complex comes my way. Also I still like to do things by hand just because I still want to learn and maintain my skills. I feel that I'm not learning anything by using claude, that's a real thing.
In the end I feel it's a powerful tool that is here to stay and I would be upset if I wouldn't have access to it anymore, it's very good. I recently subscribed to it and use it on my free time just because it's a very fun technology to play with. But it's a tool. I'm paid because I take responsability that my work will be delivered on time, working, tested, with code on par with the org quality standards. If I do it by hand or with claude is irrelevant. If i can do it faster it will likely mean I will receive more work to do. Somebody still has to operate Claude and it's not going to be non-technical people for sure.
I genuinely think that if anyone still believes today that this technology is only hype or a slop machine, they are in denial or haven't tried to use a recent frontier model with the correct setup (mostly giving the agent a way to autonomously validate it's changes).
I work at a FAANG. Professionally, I have had almost no luck with it, outside of summarizing design docs or literally just finding something in the code that a simple search might not find: such is this team's code that does X? I am yet to successfully prompt it and get a working commit. Further, I will add that I also don't know any ICs personally who have successfully used it. Though, there's endless posts of peopl…
Wow, that's such a drastic different experience than mine. May I ask what toolset are you using? Are you limited to using your home grown "AcmeCode" or have full access to Claude Code / Cursor with the latest and greatest models, 1M context size, full repo access? I see it generating between 50% to 90% accuracy in both small and large tasks, as in the PRs it generates range between being 50% usable code that a human…
I think I've amended that thought. They are not necessarily lacking in intelligence. I hypothesize that LLMs pick up on optimism and pessimism among other sentiments in the incoming prompt: someone prompting with no hope that the result will be useful end up with useless garbage output and vice versa.
I work at a FAANG. Professionally, I have had almost no luck with it, outside of summarizing design docs or literally just finding something in the code that a simple search might not find: such is this team's code that does X? I am yet to successfully prompt it and get a working commit. Further, I will add that I also don't know any ICs personally who have successfully used it. Though, there's endless posts of peopl…
Experience depends on which FAANG it is. Amazon for example doesn't allow Claude Code or Codex so you are stuck with whatever internal tool they have Meta, despite competing with these, is open to let their devs use better off the shelf tools.
1. Degraded quality over longer context window usage. I have to think about managing context and agents instead of focusing solely on the task.
2. It’s slow (when it’s “thinking”). Especially when it’s tasked with something simple (e.g., I could ask Claude Opus to commit code and submit for review but it’s just faster if I run the commands myself and I don’t want to have to think about conditionally switching to Haiku / faster models mid task execution).
3. It often requires a lot of upfront planning and feedback loop set up to the extent that sometimes I wonder if it would’ve been faster if I did it myself.
A smarter model would be great but there are bigger productivity gains to be had with a good set up, a faster model, and abstracting away the need to think about agents or context usage. I’m still figuring out a good set up. Something with the speed of Haiku with the reasoning of Opus without the overhead of having to think about the management of agents or context would be sweet.