21–30 of 253 posts
If people would be as patient and inventive to teach junior devs as they are with llms the whole industry would be better of.
The terminal really is sort of the perfect interface for an LLM; I wonder whether this approach will become favored over the custom IDE integrations.
>Claude code feels more powerful than cursor, but why? One of the reasons seems it's ability to be scripted. At the end of the day, cursor is an editor, while claude code is a swiss army knife (on steroids). Agreed, and I find that I use Claude Code on more than traditional code bases. I run it in my Obsidian vault for all kinds of things. I run it to build local custom keyboard bindings with scripts that publish scr…
The thing is, Claude Code only works if you have the plan. It’s impossible to use it on the API, and it makes me wonder if $100/month is truly enough. I use it all day every day now, and I must be consuming a whole lot more than my $100 is worth.
This article is a bit all over the place. First, a slide deck to describe a codebase is not that useful. There's a reason why no one ever uses a slide deck for anything besides supporting an oral presentation. Most of these things in the post aren't new capabilities. The automation of workflows is indeed valuable and cool. Not sure what AGI has anything to do with it.
Also I don't trust it. They touched on that I think (I only skimmed). Plus you shouldn't need an LLM to understand a codebase. Just make it more understandable! Of course capital likes shortcuts and hacks to get the next feature out in Q3.
The kind of person who prefers this setup wants to read (and write) the least amount of code on their own. So their ideal workflow is one where they get to make programs through natural language. Making codebases understandable for this group is mostly a waste of effort.
It's a wild twist of fate that programming languages were intended to make programming friendly to humans, and now humans don't want to read them at all. Code is becoming just an intermediary artifact useless to machines, which can instead write machine code directly.
I wish someone could put this genie back in the bottle.
If people would be as patient and inventive to teach junior devs as they are with llms the whole industry would be better of.
A constant reminder: you can't have wizards without having noobs. Every wizard was once a noob. No one is born that way, they were forged. It's in everybody's interest to train them. If they leave, you still benefit from the other companies who trained them, making the cost equal. Though if they leave, there's probably better ways to make them stay that you haven't considered (e.g. have you considered not paying new…
If people would be as patient and inventive to teach junior devs as they are with llms the whole industry would be better of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least it’s easier to teach yourself anything now with an LLM? So maybe it balances out.
I think it's actually even worse: it's easier to trick yourself into thinking you're teaching yourself anything. Learning comes from grinding and LLMs are the ultimate anti-intellectual-grind machines. Which is great for when you're not trying to learn a skill!
That's just one use though. The other is treating it like it's a jr developer, which has its own shift in thinking. Practice in writing details specs goes a long way here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's actually even worse: it's easier to trick yourself into thinking you're teaching yourself anything. Learning comes from grinding and LLMs are the ultimate anti-intellectual-grind machines. Which is great for when you're not trying to learn a skill!
Yeah, you have to be really careful about how you use LLMs. I've been finding it very useful to use them as teachers, or to use them in the same way that I'd use a coworker. "What's the idiomatic ways to write this python comprehension in javascript?" Or, "Hey, do you remember what you call it when..." And when I request these things I'll try to ask in the most generic way possible so that I then get retype the relev…
> Practice in writing details specs goes a long way here.
This is an additional asymmetric advantage to more senior engineers as they use these tools
If people would be as patient and inventive to teach junior devs as they are with llms the whole industry would be better of.
A constant reminder: you can't have wizards without having noobs. Every wizard was once a noob. No one is born that way, they were forged. It's in everybody's interest to train them. If they leave, you still benefit from the other companies who trained them, making the cost equal. Though if they leave, there's probably better ways to make them stay that you haven't considered (e.g. have you considered not paying new…
The terminal really is sort of the perfect interface for an LLM; I wonder whether this approach will become favored over the custom IDE integrations.
sort of, except I think the future of llms will be to to have the llm try 5 separate attempts to create a fix in parallel, since llm time is cheaper than human time... and once you introduce this aspect into the workflow, you'll want to spin up multiple containers, and the benefits of the terminal aren't as strong anymore.