Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I think they are lying to you [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#31

Post by thraway3837 »

zingababba wrote: post #24
thraway3837 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The only caveat I'd add is that I'm using an alternate account to agree with people who say that AI coding has been amazing, because there is a seemingly a good chunk of people who dislike it and it will be met with downvotes. Also because my real account has my real name in the profile along with projects I work on, and a simple search could reveal my pro-AI coding views and these same folks who downvote could…

Well said. Most of my career I made a trade-off and that trade-off was that I would much rather spend my free time outside in nature than on implementing my wild ideas which I always recognized would take considerable time. I'd maybe take 1% of my ideas anywhere. Now I can play with ideas while I'm out on the trail and turn those into something I can test within a couple hours, it's the most fun I've had on computers…

Very well said yourself! I frequently tell my friends (both in tech and polar opposite non-tech) that 3 things changed the tech world for me:

1. Internet 2. Smartphone 3. AI coding

All 3 were "WOW" moments for me.

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#32

Post by reinitctxoffset »

orangebread wrote: post #14

I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

I read this a lot and it is just very foreign to me. I use AI systems in software work all day seven days a week and my job has become simultaneously more interesting and more difficult because I scale the ambition up until it's hard again.

Isn't anything else a surrender to irrelevance? I agree that many coding tasks that were previously effort intensive are now not effort intensive, but there's no ceiling I'm aware of on how correct and performant and economical and capable software can be short of saturating the hardware.

And the emergence of agentic intelligence at scale demands new regimes of performance and correctness and economy like maybe nothing else ever has.

I have an anecdote related to TUI flickering in that my TUI library had a flickering problem because it was doing more than 10k FPS, and so I had to lock the buffer swap to the vsync to stop it tearing.

AI coding didn't make more React too cheap to meter, it made notcurses bound into Trinity-inspired deterministic replay event substrate over io_uring possible.

https://youtu.be/YqgEtpJ8tGI?feature=shared

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#33

Post by mikgp »

orangebread wrote: post #14

I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

You have planning docs?

I am in no way surprised a sufficient waterfall method passed to Claude code could result in a completely accurate application. But most applications aren’t built via waterfall for all the reasons.

Also agents are just loops. So if you use Claude Code you are doing. Everything with a loop. So I do believe him but Im not entirely grokking the flex.

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#34

Post by kshri24 »

_doctor_love wrote: post #26
andrei_says_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this it occurs to me that this timeline may be moving toward a future where garbage software, garbage information etc. have become the norm for so long that the number of people who can distinguish trash from quality, or signal from noise, has become negligible. A true era of ignorance, looking like an ocean of nonsense in which no one can really navigate as it is ungrounded in reality. Idiocracy presents a n…

The pralaya is not far away. Soon Shiva will begin his dance. I give us until 2036.

Pralaya happens after complete age of Brahma. That would be 100 Brahma years. Or 311.04 trillion human years. We are in the 51st year of Brahma.

Kali Yuga lifespan is 432,000 years. Of which we are 4000+ years into it. So that's another 428,000 years of hell on Earth.

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#35

Post by calvinmorrison »

themafia wrote: post #29
orangebread wrote: post #14

I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

> just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. Do you have any publicly available demonstrations of this claim? > A lot of you don't want to hear it That there are skill differences in the use of technology? On the contrary this knowledge makes me suspicious of undocumented claims like yours. > this is a user issue. Another claim I wish was quantified. With all the bil…

> Do you have any publicly available demonstrations of this claim?

Yeah I mean for example I wrote up a new audio mixer application for TDE using basically claude and just saying - hey rewrite the old ALSA one with Pulse/Pipewire.... its awesome. I dont know how it works.,

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#36

Post by scooby7430 »

thraway3837 wrote: post #19
orangebread wrote: post #14

I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

Yup. The only caveat I'd add is that I'm using an alternate account to agree with people who say that AI coding has been amazing, because there is a seemingly a good chunk of people who dislike it and it will be met with downvotes. Also because my real account has my real name in the profile along with projects I work on, and a simple search could reveal my pro-AI coding views and these same folks who downvote could…

Agreed. I think the opinion on AI is split into two camps, people who's enjoyment from programming came from writing the code and people who like building things. It's really undeniable at this point that AI has changed the job and I really enjoy it now more than ever, I can come up with an idea, guide an LLM through the steps to build it and have it be a real thing faster than I ever could have imagined.

Yeah LLMs aren't perfect, there is back and forth along the way and if you just let it loose you are going to end up with slop but I feel like we can achieve better quality now in a shorter amount of time using the tool properly. I'm not sure if I am just naive but I am really excited about the possibilities now and have been spending more time than ever building what I want. I used to think that writing the code was the enjoyable part for me but I think it was just building things.

I empathize with people in the other camp who got into it for the love of the code and now that part of the job is being taken away but I think it would benefit them to be honest about LLMs and try and work out a path forward here rather than just "my function is better than an LLM one, LLMs are just slop machines"

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#37

Post by mikgp »

The one thing that gets me is - Boris must know what everyone is thinking when he says he merges 300 MR’s per day, but I think everyone knows it doesn’t mean what he’s implying - it just can’t. He can’t read 300 open source contributions per day to determine if they fit into the spirit of Claude Code. Even if he’d fully automated the testing and integration process. And 300 people per day submitting contributions?

He could mean a few other thingsc one would be, he has like 20 version tags and he merges 15 features into each version (does he explicitly say merge to main?)

The other thing he could mean is he has like a software engineering agent and that software engineering agent like loops through GitHub issues and his personal notepad and maybe uses a few different branches to test things out and build I dunno adversarially, running all sorts of experiments.

Which would be genuinely cool! But using Mr’s to say tweak bunch of variables back and forth isn’t what 300 MR’s implies.

But then the ultimate question is - it may be cool to fully automate a software engineering agent, and certainly is the type of research Anthropic and someone of Boris’ stature (and pay level) should be working on. But is it efficient?

I guess yes hems talked about this:

https://karozieminski.substack.com/p/boris-cherny-claude-cod...

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#38

Post by slopinthebag »

orangebread wrote: post #14

I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy. A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

If Anthropic has some of the best and most highly paid software engineers on the planet working on a simple program (terminal app) with virtually unlimited tokens for the strongest coding model, and they still ship a sloppy buggy mess, what does that say about the quality of code you are outputting?

A lot of you don't want to hear it, but you aren't doing better than Anthropic so unless your use case is ridiculously simple, Claude Code is the ceiling for what you're creating, and if what you're doing is at all complex, the ceiling is much much lower.

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#39

Post by panarky »

Retric wrote: post #28
panarky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched the video and I wish I could get those 13 minutes of my life back. He could have done it in 13 seconds instead of 13 minutes: "Anthropic is lying about the effectiveness of agentic loops because there's this one screen flicker bug in Claude Code that took a year to fix." Yeah, like when United Airlines claims a plane can fly 300 people 6,000 miles they are lying to you. I can prove they're lying to you beca…

He spent that much time and you still misunderstood the direct message and missed the subtext. The lie is coding is solved, the proof is they had an outstanding coding issue they were working on for over a year while saying coding is solved. There’s a great number of other issues with their own software that disprove their premise, but you only need one counter example to disprove something. And because you missed it…

One unresolved bug does not disprove anything.

Re: I think they are lying to you [video]

#40

Post by theendisney »

panarky wrote: post #15
bitwize wrote: post #2

Pretty much the same point I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48403908 Their apparent inability to get the basics right makes me severely doubt their claims of self-improving AI. The humans at Anthropic wouldn't know improvement if it landed on their lap and started twerking, and AI cannot do a job without strong human intervention into what the goals and guardrails actually are. I'm kind of reminded of whe…

I watched the video and I wish I could get those 13 minutes of my life back. He could have done it in 13 seconds instead of 13 minutes: "Anthropic is lying about the effectiveness of agentic loops because there's this one screen flicker bug in Claude Code that took a year to fix." Yeah, like when United Airlines claims a plane can fly 300 people 6,000 miles they are lying to you. I can prove they're lying to you beca…

I write little bits of code then test them. If the screen flickers i wouldnt continue until it is solved. If ive missed it and have to hear it from (a) user(s) i would kinda like to fix it imediately. Not always possible but truly annoying things have priority over new things.

If i had unlimited developers at my command. All many times as fast as me.... how can i keep the problem? It would take some huge effort to keep.

The unlimited number of devs would talk about it an unlimited number of times. Not fixing it would be very expensive that way.

Post reply on HN