101–110 of 555 posts
I think it's becoming clear we're not anywhere near AGI, we figured out how to vectorize our knowledge bases and replay it back. We have a vectorized knowledge base, not an AI.
> AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet
It’s truly strange that people keep citing the quality of Claude code’s leaked source as if it’s proof vibe coding doesn’t work. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. It shows that you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes that plus having tens of billions of gulf money certainly helps you subsidize your moronic failures with money that isn't yours while you continue, and fail to, achieve profitability in any time horizon within a single lifespan.
Huh what moronic failure did Anthropic do? Every Claude Code user I know loves it.
> That wouldn’t even be a big violation of the vibe coding concept. You’re reading the innards a little but you’re only giving high-level, conceptual, abstract ideas about how problems should be solved. The machine is doing the vast majority, if not literally all, of the actual writing. Claude Code is being produced at AI Level 7 (Human specced, bots coded), whereas the author is arguing that AI Level 6 (Bots coded,…
Building the rendering pipeline, algorithms, maths, I've turned off even level 2. It is just more of a distraction than it's worth for that deep state of focus.
So I imagine at least some of the disconnect comes from the area people work in and its novelty or complexity.
It’s truly strange that people keep citing the quality of Claude code’s leaked source as if it’s proof vibe coding doesn’t work. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. It shows that you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code.
This is a really wrong perspective on software. Short term monkey style coding does not produce products. You might get money but that is not what it is about. This is similar to retarded builders in Turkey saying “wow, I can make the same building, sell for the same price, but spend way less” and then millions of people becoming victim when there is an earthquake. This is not how responsible people should think abou…
Getting money is 100% what it is about and Claude Code is great product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and to add, in case it's not obvious: in my experience the maintenance, mental (and emotional costs, call me sensitive) cost of bad code compounds exponentially the more hacks you throw at it
Sure, for humans. Not sure they'll be the primary readers of code going forward
No accounting for taste, but part of makes code hard for me to reason about is when it has lots of combinatorial complexity, where the amount of states that can happen makes it difficult to know all the possible good and bad states that your program can be in. Combinatorial complexity is something that objectively can be expensive for any form of computer, be it a human brain or silicon. If the code is written in such a way that the number of correct and incorrect states are impossible to know, then the problem becomes undecidable.
I do think there is code that is "objectively" difficult to work with.
- Brooks' No Silver Bullet: no single technology or management technique will yield a 10-fold productivity improvement in software development within a decade. If we write a spec that details everything we want, we would write soemthing as specific as code. Currently people seem to believe that a lot of the fundamentals are well covered by existing code, so a vague lines of "build me XXX with YYY" can lead to amazing results because AI successfully transfers the world-class expertise of some engineers to generate code for such prompt, so most of the complex turns to be accidental, and we only need much fewer engineers to handle essential complexities.
- Kernighan's Law, which says debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Now people are increasingly believing that AI can debug way faster than human (most likely because other smart people have done similar debugging already). And in the worst case, just ask AI to rewrite the code.
- Dijkstra on the foolishness of programming in natural language. Something along the line of which a system described in natural language becomes exponentially harder to manage as its size increases, whereas a system described in formal symbols grows linearly in complexity relative to its rules. Similar to above, people believe that the messiness of natural language is not a problem as long as we give detailed enough instructions to AI, while letting AI fills in the gaps with statistical "common sense", or expertise thereof.
- Lehman’s Law, which states that a system's complexity increases as it evolves, unless work is done to maintain or reduce it. Similar to above, people start to believe otherwise.
- And remotely Coase's Law, which argues that firms exist because the transaction costs of using the open market are often higher than the costs of directing that same work internally through a hierarchy. People start to believe that the cost of managing and aligning agents is so low that one-person companies that handle large number of transactions will appear.
Also, ultimately Jevons Paradox, as people worry that the advances in AI will strip out so much demand that the market will slash more jobs than it will generate. I think this is the ultimate worry of many software engineers. Luddites were rediculed, but they were really skilled craftsmen who spent years mastering the art of using those giant 18-pound shears. They were the staff engineers of the 19th-century textile world. Mastering those 18-pound shears wasn't just a job but an identity, a social status, and a decade-long investment in specialized skills. Yeah, Jevons Paradox may bring new jobs eventually, but it may not reduce the blood and tears of the ordinary people.
Intereting times.
It’s truly strange that people keep citing the quality of Claude code’s leaked source as if it’s proof vibe coding doesn’t work. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. It shows that you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code.
Yes that plus having tens of billions of gulf money certainly helps you subsidize your moronic failures with money that isn't yours while you continue, and fail to, achieve profitability in any time horizon within a single lifespan.
It’s truly strange that people keep citing the quality of Claude code’s leaked source as if it’s proof vibe coding doesn’t work. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. It shows that you can build a crazy popular & successful product while violating all the traditional rules about “good” code.
The situation there is akin to Viaweb - Viaweb also rode hype wave and code situation was awful as well (see PG's stories about fixing bugs during customer's issue reproduction theater).
What did Viaweb's buyer do? They rewrote thing in C++.
If history rhymes, then buyer of Anthropic would do something close to "rewrite it in C++" to the current Claude Code implementation.
> Then I explain what I think should be done and we’ll keep discussing it until I stop having more thoughts to give and the machine stops saying stupid things which need correcting. Users like the author must be the most valuable Claude asset, because AI itself isn't a product — people's feedback that shapes output is.
> Users like the author He’s a pretty interesting fella, I imagine his work influenced a lot of people over the years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Cohen