71–80 of 110 posts
The trouble comes when you now want that system to do something unique for your business, and those ripple effects through the entire system you didn’t design become very painful.
I am curious how Claude Opus 5 fares - similar, better, or (my guess) worse than Fable 5.
I decided to try Codex+gpt-5.6-sol-xhigh, and it's really good. It reminds me a lot of Fable 5, but it also is a LOT harder to use all your tokens with. Plus they give you a free reset a week right now. I'd even go so far as to say I think it's better than Fable 5. With an asterisk...
That asterisk: For anything very big, I'm having it do review loops using Claude Code + Opus 5.
For example, I gave it a few paragraphs describing a bi-directional rsync without the Unison database. It worked solo for 4-5 hours and in my testing it works great. I gave it a few small feedbacks (give me progress in human units not bytes, there's a bug syncing a specific file rather than directory, etc).
We (Team of 3) built a retrieval engine from scratch in .NET for investigative search, with AI doing most of the backend implementation while humans handled the design and architecture and front end. It was developed using a task based, incremental approach. Includes more than 3,000 tests and extensive documentation, and is optimized for asynchronous ingestion using NATS and a disk backed WAL. It includes a custom WA…
What size project an AI can complete on its own is IMHO not an interesting question. The AIs and harnesses are getting good enough that quite large things can be built, primarily as a function of cost. The interesting question in my view is what is the largest system an AI can maintain over a long time horizon -- while keeping a coherent architecture that adapts and responds well to change. All the while remaining pe…
In a benchmark, there are usually clear tests and a correct reference. In actual product development, requirements are often unclear, and we do not always know what the correct result is.
Passing tests is also not enough to confirm security, maintainability, or operability. I would like to see a benchmark where an AI continues changing the same product for several months. It would be interesting to see whether the architecture remains understandable and safe after many changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well if driving is supposedly safer when automated, why not code
Is it actually safer? If you can't understand the code you can't verify it's safety, and AI code often has bugs in it. You can't trust implicitly.
I have been using Claude to build a clone of Bash in Rust ( https://github.com/jdstanhope/huck ). It has been goin going on now for 81 days, 2600 commits and I have covered a good chunk of the features such that I can source by .bashrc with a number of extensions. It has been doing pretty good but it will sometimes spend hours to do few line fix and other times pushback on making big changes despite have over 3000 te…
Very cool, but I'm skeptical. Over the last year, every Cursor/Claude/Codex project I've worked on devolves into shitty, grafted-on, duct-tape and bandaid'ed architecture, with "fixes" just working around broken code, and tons of duplication that lead to whack-a-mole. The system works at first, but then bugs start piling up and eventually take over. Everyone I talk to shares the same experience. Not to mention that i…
You really need to add yourself as a human in loop to be in the middle of design choices. That is, ask the model for a plan, what the trade offs are, should parts of the code be refactored before the next feature, etc.
Also, there’s an element of reading the code and ordering refactors. I’ve noticed that for embedded code codex loves to to do everything in a main.c and too many compiler defines. Asking it to propose a refactoring into modules helps a lot.
It’s just like writing real code, if you don’t do design up front and don’t aggressively refactor as the requirements change, it becomes a mess.