> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. Maybe for a personal project but this doesn't work in a multi-dev environment with paying customers. In my experience, paying attention to architecture and the code itself results in a much more pliable application that can be evolved.
Counter argument... High velocity teams also observe production system telemetry and use error rates, tracing and more to maintain high SLAs for customers. They set a "budget" and use feature flagging to release risky code and roll back or roll forward based on metrics. So agentic coding can feed back on observed behaviors in production too.
I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
101–110 of 236 posts
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#102>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…
all fun and games until you need to debug the rats nest that you've been continually building. I am actually shocked people who have coded before have been one-shotted into believing this
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is only 4 years old
technical preview in June 2021. I was using it for a bit before that as an internal employee. so they may have rounded up slightly or also were an internal beta test side note, I’ve been trying to remember when it launched internally if anybody knows. I feel like it was pre-COVID, but that’s a long timeline from internal use to public preview
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#104> my experience from 5 years of coding with AI What AI have you been using for 5 years of coding?
More importantly: what software of value have they produced in that time? I glanced around their site, just saw a bunch of teaching materials about Ai.
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#105Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
technical preview in June 2021. I was using it for a bit before that as an internal employee. so they may have rounded up slightly or also were an internal beta test side note, I’ve been trying to remember when it launched internally if anybody knows. I feel like it was pre-COVID, but that’s a long timeline from internal use to public preview
Yes, the technical preview of Github Copilot. I rounded up.
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#107>> You no longer need to review the code. Or instruct the model at the level of files or functions. You can test behaviors instead. I think this is where things will ultimately head. You generate random code, purely random in raw machine readable binary, and simply evaluate a behavior. Most random generated code will not work. some, however, will work. and within that working code, some will be far faster and this is…
And how exactly do you foresee probabilistic systems working out in real life? Nobody wants software that seldom does what they expect, and which tends to trend toward desirable behavior over time (where "desirable" behavior is determined by the sum of global feedback and revenue/profit of the company producing it). Today you send some money to your spouse but it's received by another person with the same name. Tomor…
Whatever gets generated, if it passes tests and is observably in compliance with the spec, is accepted and made permanent. It's the clay we're talking about Jackson Pollocking, not the sculpture.
Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#108Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0
#109LLM denialists were always wrong and they should be embarrassed to share their bad model of reality and how the world works.