221–230 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t need external research to validate or invalidate my own experience.
One of the outcomes of that study is that your own productivity estimate might not match up with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends on the tasks you use it for. Bootstrapping or translating projects between languages is amazing. New feature development? Questionable.
I don’t write frontend stuff, but sometimes need to fix a frontend bug. Yesterday I fed claude very surgical instructions on how the bug happens, and what I want to happen instead, and it oneshot the fix. I had a solution in about 5 minutes, whereas it would have taken me at least an hour, but most likely more time to get to that point. Literally an hour or two of my day was saved yesterday. I am salaried at around $…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends on the tasks you use it for. Bootstrapping or translating projects between languages is amazing. New feature development? Questionable.
It also depends upon how you manage it My process, which probably wouldn't work with concurrent agents because I'm keeping an eye on it, is basically: - "Read these files and write some documentation on how they work - put the documentation in the docs folder" (putting relevant files into the context and giving it something to refer to later on) - "We need to make change X, give me some options on how to do it" (maki…
This is great and all but, who can actually afford to let these agents run on tasks all day long? Is anyone here actually using this or are these rollouts aimed at large companies? I'm burning through so many tokens on Cursor that I've had to upgrade to Ultra recently - and i'm convinced they're tweaking the burn rate behind the scenes - usage allowance doesn't seem proportional. Thank god the open source/local LLM w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flat earther argument. “The research is wrong.”
I proposed a logically consistent perspective where both my experience and the study are true at the same time? What is your response to that other than comparing me to a flat earther? Do you have something useful to contribute?
A cynical read of this is that it’s all a ploy to maximize usage. Why do agents need to speak to each other if they’re just doing the work correctly the first time? Is it an admission that a single agent is not useful and reliable enough?
I run a loop where I have 4 agents review in parallel after each implementation phase. It just increases the odds of finding issues. I've switched this over to a team of 4 now that talk to each other to discuss issues they find and it's amazing. They confirm between themselves and if they wrongly identified something the others correct them.
I understand that it works better, but I am rightfully pointing out that it's less efficient.
An analogy would be putting a V8 engine into a pickup truck to make it go as fast as a Mazda Miata.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel. The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements. https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/cursor-prici... https://hostbor.com/claude-ai-max-plan-explained/ We can see especially in the case of Claude AI Max that…
> Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel. Eh, I'd call those a sort of programming language. The user is still writing code, albeit in a "friendlier" manner. You can't just ask for what you want in English. > The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel. Eh, I'd call those a sort of programming language. The user is still writing code, albeit in a "friendlier" manner. You can't just ask for what you want in English. > The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements.…
In 1980, the costs associated with what we today call IT were not $0, they were just spread around in administrative clerical duties performed by a lot of humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I proposed a logically consistent perspective where both my experience and the study are true at the same time? What is your response to that other than comparing me to a flat earther? Do you have something useful to contribute?
I wasn't even responding to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t need external research to validate or invalidate my own experience.
The flat earther argument. “The research is wrong.”
It's outdated, doesn't differentiate between people trying to incorporate it in their current workflow and the people who apply themselves to entirely new ones. It doesn't represent me in any way and I am releasing features to my platform daily now, instead of weekly. So I can wholeheartedly disagree with its conclusion.
The earth is either flat of it isn't. It's easy to proof it's not flat. It's not easy to conclude that the results of a study in a field that changes daily represents all people working in it, including the ones who did not participate.