I see these posts left and right but no one mentions the _actual_ thing developers are hired for, responsibility. You could use whatever tools to aid coding already, even copy paste from StackOverflow or take whole boilerplate projects from Github already. No AI will take responsibility for code or fix a burning issue that arises because of it. The amount of "responsibility takers" also increases linearly with the size of the codebase / amount of projects.
Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
141–150 of 1001 posts
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
It cloned one of the many open source ones available is what you mean.
As long as you give it deterministic goals / test criteria (compiles, lints, tests, E2E tests, achieve 100% parity with existing solution etc) it will brute force its way to a solution. Codex will work for hours/days, even weeks sometimes, until it has finished. A person would never work this way, but since this just runs in the background, there’s no issue with this approach except if you need it fast.
No, it might figure out the solution but even after many days there's no assurance that it won't get stuck making the same mistakes over and over again, never getting closer to a solution. I've seen this many times.
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Democratizing coding so regular people can get the most out of computers is the opposite of oppression. You are mistaking your interests for societies interests. It's the same with artists who are now pissed that regular people can manifest their artistic ideas without needing to go through an artist or spend years studying the craft. The artists are calling the AI companies oppressors because they are breaking the a…
When you imagine my position, "I hate these companies for democratizing code/art", then debate that it is called a strawman logical fallacy.
Ascribing the goals of "democratize code/art" onto these companies and their products is called delusion.
I am sure the 3 letter agency directors on these company boards are thrilled you think they left their lifelong careers solely to finally realize their dream to allow you to code and "manifest your artistic ideas".
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#144The problem with this is none of this is production quality. You haven’t done edge case testing for user mistakes, a security audit, or even just maintainability. Yes opus 4.5 seems great but most of the time it tries to vastly over complicate a solution. Its answer will be 10x harder to maintain and debug than the simpler solution a human would have created by thinking about the constraints of keeping code working.
Depends on the application. In many cases it's good enough.
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a…
[flagged]
Actually, I've been saying that even models from 2+ years ago were extremely good, but you needed to "hold them right" to get good results, else you might cut yourself on the sharp edges of the "jagged frontier" (https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=64700) Unfortunately, this often necessitated you to adapt yourself to the tool, which is a big change -- unfeasible for most people and companies.
I would say the underlying principle was ensuring a tight, highly relevant context (e.g. choose the "right" task size and load only the relevant files or even code snippets, not the whole codebase; more manual work upfront, but almost guaranteed one-shot results.)
With newer models the sharper edges have largely disappeared, so you can hold them pretty much any which way and still get very good results. I'm not sure how much of this is from the improvements in the model itself vs the additional context it gets from the agentic scaffolding.
I still maintain that we need to adapt ourselves to this new paradigm to fully leverage AI-assisted coding, and the future of coding will be pretty strange compared to what we're used to. As an example, see Gas Town: https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#146A couple weeks ago I had Opus 4.5 go over my project and improve anything it could find. It "worked" but the architecture decisions it made were baffling, and had many, many bugs. I had to rewrite half of the code. I'm not an AI hater, I love AI for tests, finding bugs, and small chores. Opus is great for specific, targeted tasks. But don't ask it to do any general architecture, because you'll be soon to regret it.
Instead you should prompt it to come up with suggestions, look for inconsistencies etc. Then you get a list, and you pick the ones you find promising. Then you ask Claude to explain what why and how of the idea. And only then you let it implement something.
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a…
[flagged]
You're free to not open these threads, you know!
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a…
[flagged]
> If I am unable to convince you to stop meticulously training the tools of the oppressor (for a fee!) then I just ask you do so quietly.
I'm kind of fascinated by how AI has become such a culture war topic with hyperbole like "tools of the oppressor"
It's equally fascinating how little these comments understand about how LLMs work. Using an LLM for inference (what you do when you use Claude Code) does not train the LLM. It does not learn from your code and integrate it into the model while you use it for inference. I know that breaks the "training the tools of the oppressor" narrative which is probably why it's always ignored. If not ignored, the next step is to decry that the LLM companies are lying and are stealing everyone's code despite saying they don't.
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheaper than hiring another developer, probably. My experience: for a few dollars I was able to extensively refactor a Python codebase in half a day. This otherwise would have taken multiple days of very tedious work.
And that's what the C-suite wants to know. Prepare yourself to be replaced in the not so distant future. Hope you have a good "nest" to support yourself when you're inevitably fired.
You say this like it's some kind of ominous revelation, but that's just how capitalism works? Yeah, prepare for the future. All things are impermanent.
Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far
#150Title is: "Opus 4.5 is going to change everything"