71–78 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in 2024 I read a study saying: "Ask 4 LLMs the same question, if they all give you the same answer there is some 95-99% chance its correct" Soooo... Its not just greed. There is something there.
What's the point of pair programming then if they both have the same opinions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in 2024 I read a study saying: "Ask 4 LLMs the same question, if they all give you the same answer there is some 95-99% chance its correct" Soooo... Its not just greed. There is something there.
What's the point of pair programming then if they both have the same opinions?
The point was: when they do agree, it is a very strong signal.
Nice - I do something similar in a semi manual way. I do find Codex very good at reviewing work marked as completed by Claude, especially when I get Claude to write up its work with a why,where & how doc. It’s very rare Claude has fully completed the task successfully and Codex doesn’t find issues.
Do you see any benefit in doing this locally versus having Codex review the PR Claude generates?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha yeah... Wait until they start jacking up the subscription prices
They don't change the prices, they just modify the amount of compute allocated - slower speeds and fewer tokens, they can set everything in the background to optimize costs and returns, and the user never realizes anything has changed. Sometimes they'll announce the changes, and they'll even try to spin it as improving services or increasing value. Local AI capabilities are improving at a rapid pace, at some point so…
I can't imagine that this is the way it will go... Tokens haven't been getting cheaper for flagship models, have they? You already see something closer to their real cost if you compare e.g. the Claude subscriptions to their actual token pricing.
> Local AI capabilities are improving at a rapid pace, at some point soon we'll have an RWKV or a 4B LLM that performs at a GPT-5 level, with reasoning and all the bells and whistles, and hopefully that'll shake out most of the deceptive and shady tactics the big platforms are using.
Maybe, but LLMs are scale game, and data center will always be more capable than your local device. So, you will always be getting a worse version locally. Or do you think we'll LLMs in data centers stop getting better and local LLMs will somehow catch up?
I think they're trying to implement every management fad with AI agents and see if improves performance. Personally, I have tried pair programming, and it hasn't really felt like something that works, for various reasons - the main one is that I (and my partner) have complex thought processes in my head, that is difficult and cumbersome to articulate, and to an onlooker, it looks like I'm randomly changing code.
You need to communicate actively and be in sync with your pair. I've seen it work _once_ with two guys who had know each other since they were kids. They were really more than the sum of their parts when pair programming.
I’m curious whether anyone has measured this systematically. Right now most of the evidence for multi-agent setups still feels anecdotal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. Git helps track how the plan changes, but it doesn’t always capture the original intent behind it.
I’m glad someone is finally bringing this up, thank you! What are you suggesting instead? To share the prompt in order to capture the intent? Usually I expect the plan to reflect the prompt. I find it interesting when I create a PR after a quick session: the description really captures the intent instead of focusing on the actual implementation. I think it’s because the context is still intact, and that’s very useful…
I think they're trying to implement every management fad with AI agents and see if improves performance. Personally, I have tried pair programming, and it hasn't really felt like something that works, for various reasons - the main one is that I (and my partner) have complex thought processes in my head, that is difficult and cumbersome to articulate, and to an onlooker, it looks like I'm randomly changing code.
Pair programming is like guiding the mechs in Pacific Rim (too bad they never made a sequel). You need to communicate actively and be in sync with your pair. I've seen it work _once_ with two guys who had know each other since they were kids. They were really more than the sum of their parts when pair programming.
We were doing so many things so much better than what Ive seen as industry best practice since then, despite both of us being both very inexperienced and young.