Live data from Hacker News

I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

blog.silennai.com

21–30 of 236 posts

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#21
post #10

>> 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…

This is a recurring fantasy in LLM threads but makes little sense. Writing machine code is very difficult (even writing byte code for simple VMs is annoying and error-prone). Abstractions are beneficial and increase productivity (per human, per token). It makes essentially no sense to throw away seven decades of productivity increasing technologies to have neural nets punch cards again, and it's not going to happen unless tokens become unimaginably cheap.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#22
post #3

> 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.

Everyone who is responsible for SOC 2 at their company just felt a disturbance.

Honestly, I can't wait for AI: development practices to mature, because I'm really tired of the fake hype and missteps getting in the way of things.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#24
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the original GitHub Copilot

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

#25
I really love AI for lots of things, but, when I'm reading a post, the AI aesthetic has started to grate. I read articles and they all have the same "LLM" aesthetic, and I feel like I'm reading posts written by the same person.

Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical errors.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#26
The "Council of models" is a good first step, but ultimately I found myself settling on an automated talent acquisition pipeline.

I have a BIRTHING_POOL.md that combines the best AGENTS.md and introduces random AI-generated mutations and deletions. The candidates are tested using take-home PRs which are reviewed by HR.md and TECH_MANAGER.md. TECH_MANAGER.md measures completion rate per tokens (effectiveness) and then sends the stack ranking of AGENT.mds to HR to manage the talent pool. If agent effectiveness drops low enough, we pull from the birthing pool and interview more candidates.

The end result is that it effectively manages a wider range of agent talents and you don't get into these agent hive mind spirals you get if every worker has the same system prompt.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#27
post #10

>> 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…

Why should we throw away decades of development in determistic algorithms? Why tech people mentions "geneticists"? I would never select an algorithm with a "good" flying trait for making an airplane works, that's nuts

Great rule of business: sell a solution that causes more problems, requiring the purchase of more solutions.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#28
post #18
post #10

>> 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…

Maybe, but you won't be able to test all behaviors and you won't have enough time to try a million alternatives. Just because of the number of possibilities, it'll be faster to just read the code.

Eventually the generation and evaluation will be quite fast where testing a million alternatives will be viable. Impressive you suggest that there might be a million alternatives but it would be faster to just read the code and settle on one. How might that be determined? Did the author who wrote the standard library really come up with the best way when writing those functions? Or did they come up with something that seemed alright to ship relative to other ideas people came up with?

I think we need to think outside the box here and realize ideas can be generated, evaluated, and settled upon far faster than any human operates. The idea of doing what a trillion humans evaluating different functions can do is actually realistic with the path of our present technology. We are at the cusp of some very remarkable times, even more remarkable than the innovations of the past 200 years, should we make progress on this effort.

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we throw away decades of development in determistic algorithms? Why tech people mentions "geneticists"? I would never select an algorithm with a "good" flying trait for making an airplane works, that's nuts

Great rule of business: sell a solution that causes more problems, requiring the purchase of more solutions.

Customers are tired of getting piles of shit, look at the Windows situation

Re: I was a top 0.01% Cursor user, then switched to Claude Code 2.0

#30
post #13
post #10

>> 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…

You're describing genetic algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

I suppose you could generate prompts from "genes" somehow.
Post reply on HN