Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 434 posts

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#281

Post by worldsayshi »

rapind wrote: post #215
dakiol wrote: post #25

> Gemini 2.5 PRO | Claude Opus 4 Whether it's vibe coding, agentic coding, or copy pasting from the web interface to your editor, it's still sad to see the normalization of private (i.e., paid) LLM models. I like the progress that LLMs introduce and I see them as a powerful tool, but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third part…

Not an issue and I'll tell you why. If the gains plateau, then there's really no need to make productivity sacrifices here for the societal good, because there's so much competition, and various levels of open models that aren't far behind, that there will be no reason to stick with a hostile and expensive service unless it's tooling stays leaps ahead of the competition. If the gains don't plateau, well then we're ob…

> If the gains don't plateau, well then we're obsolete anyways

I think there's room for more nuance here. It could also be a situation of diminishing returns but not a sharp plateau. That could favour the big players. I think I find that scenario most likely, at least in between major breakthroughs.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#282

Post by Aurornis »

dakiol wrote: post #25

> Gemini 2.5 PRO | Claude Opus 4 Whether it's vibe coding, agentic coding, or copy pasting from the web interface to your editor, it's still sad to see the normalization of private (i.e., paid) LLM models. I like the progress that LLMs introduce and I see them as a powerful tool, but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third part…

> but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third party in order to keep programming.

I don’t understand how people consider this a strong dependency.

Changing LLMs is trivial. Some times I’ll switch between LLMs on a whim to experiment. I can close one coding agent app and open another in seconds.

These claims about vendor lock-in and strong dependencies seem to mostly be coming from people watching from a distance, not the people on the ground using these tools.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#283

Post by keeda »

cratermoon wrote: post #67
airstrike wrote: post #46

I think all conversations about coding with LLMs, vibe coding, etc. need to note the domain and choice of programming language. IMHO those two variables are 10x (maybe 100x) more explanatory than any vibe coding setup one can concoct. Anyone who is befuddled by how the other person {loves, hates} using LLMs to code should ask what kind of problem they are working on and then try to tackle the same problem with AI to…

They should also share their prompts and discuss exactly how much effort went into checking the output and re-prompting to get the desired result. The post hints at how much work it takes for the human, "If you are able to describe problems in a clear way and, if you are able to accept the back and forth needed in order to work with LLMs ... you need to provide extensive information to the LLM: papers, big parts of t…

> After all the effort getting to the point where the generated code is acceptable, one has to wonder, why not just write it yourself?

Because it is still way, way, way faster and easier. You're absolutely right that the hard part is figuring out the solution. But the time spent typing is in no way trivial or cognitively simple, especially for more complex tasks. A single prompt can easily generate 5 - 10x the amount of code in a few seconds, with the added bonus that it:

a) figures out almost all the intermediate data structures, classes, algorithms and database queries;

b) takes care of all the boilerplate and documentation;

c) frequently accounts for edge cases I hadn't considered, saving unquantifiable amounts of future debugging time;

d) and can include tests if I simply ask it to.

In fact, these days once I have the solution figured out I find it frustrating that I can't get the design in my head into the code fast enough manually. It is very satisfying to have the AI churn out reams of code, and immediately run it (or the tests) to see the expected result. Of course, I review the diff closely before committing, but then I do that for any code in any case, even my own.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#284

Post by infecto »

jacobr1 wrote: post #206
spyckie2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey antirez, What sticks out to me is Gemini catching bugs before production release, was hoping you’d give a little more insight into that. Reason being is that we expect ai to create bugs and we catch them, but if Gemini is spotting bugs by some way of it being a QA (not just by writing and passing tests) then that perks my interest.

Our team has pretty aggressively started using LLMs for automated code review. It will look at our PRs and post comments. We can adding more material for different things for it to consider- from a looking at a summarized version of our API guidelines, general prompts like, "You are an expert software engineer and QA professional, review this PR and point out any bugs or other areas of technical risk. Make concise su…

I have been surprised more folks have no rolled these out as paid for products. I have been getting tons of use out of systems like cursors bugbot. The signal to noise is high and while it’s not always right it catches a lot of bugs I would have missed.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#285

Post by leemoore »

apwell23 wrote: post #7

> Coding activities should be performed mostly with: Claude Opus 4 I've been going down to sonnet for coding over opus. maybe i am just writing dumb code

Same, if you dont give opus big enough problems it's more likely to go off the rails. Not much more likely but a little more likely

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#286

Post by bubblyworld »

roywiggins wrote: post #78
nojito wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursor is an old way of using LLMs. Not to mention in the study less than 1/2 have ever used it before the study.

The AI tooling churn is so fast that by the time a study comes out people will be able to say "well they were using an older tool" no matter what tool that the study used .

What is the problem with this, exactly? It's a valid criticism of the study (when applied to current agentic coding practices). That the pace of progress is so fast sucks for researchers, in some sense, but this is the reality right now.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#287

Post by punkspider »

theshackleford wrote: post #270
oblio wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honesty doesn't look like this: > [...] get lost [...] > [..] We don't want you to be a part of it either. [...] He's being rude. Honesty would be, something like: > I (and probably many others) like programming a lot. Even if you're frustrated with it, I think a great deal of people will be sad if somehow programming disappeared completely. It might be best for you if you just found a job that you love more, instead…

> Honesty doesn't look like this Sure it does. Reads incredibly honestly to me.

Seems both honest and rude, when it could've been honest and understanding.

Responding to the original comment with 'get lost' and 'we don't want you either' is not constructive in my opinion.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#288

Post by Aurornis »

zer00eyz wrote: post #202
simonw wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models I can run locally aren't as good yet, and are way more expensive to operate. Once it becomes economical to run a Claude 4 class model locally you'll see a lot more people doing that. The closest you can get right now might be Kimi K2 on a pair of 512GB Mac Studios, at a cost of about $20,000.

> Once it becomes economical to run a Claude 4 class model locally you'll see a lot more people doing that. Historically these sorts of things happened because of Moores law. Moores law is dead. For a while we have scaled on the back of "more cores", and process shrink. It looks like we hit the wall again. We seem to be near the limit of scaling (physics) we're not seeing a lot in clock (some but not enough), and IPC…

> We seem to be near the limit of scaling (physics) we're not seeing a lot in clock (some but not enough), and IPC is flat. We are also having power (density) and cooling (air wont cut it any more) issues.

This is exaggeration. CPUs are still getting faster. IPC is increasing, not flat. Cooling on air is fine unless you’re going for high density or low noise.

This is just cynicism. Even an M4 MacBook Pro is substantially faster than an M1 from a few years ago, which is substantially faster than the previous versions.

Server chips are scaling core counts and bandwidth. GPUs are getting faster and faster.

The only way you could conclude scaling is dead is if you ignored all recent progress or you’re expecting improvements at an unrealistically fast rate.

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#289

Post by [deleted] »

roywiggins wrote: post #78
nojito wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursor is an old way of using LLMs. Not to mention in the study less than 1/2 have ever used it before the study.

The AI tooling churn is so fast that by the time a study comes out people will be able to say "well they were using an older tool" no matter what tool that the study used .

[deleted]

Re: Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

#290

Post by Aurornis »

ozgung wrote: post #126
dakiol wrote: post #25

> Gemini 2.5 PRO | Claude Opus 4 Whether it's vibe coding, agentic coding, or copy pasting from the web interface to your editor, it's still sad to see the normalization of private (i.e., paid) LLM models. I like the progress that LLMs introduce and I see them as a powerful tool, but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third part…

> The excuse "but you earn six figures, what' $200/month to you?" doesn't really capture the issue here. Just like every other subscription model, including the one in the Black Mirror episode, Common People. The value is too good to be true for the price at the beginning. But you become their prisoner in the long run, with increasing prices and degrading quality.

I don’t get it. There are multiple providers. I cancel one provider and sign up for someone new in a few minutes when I feel like changing. I’ve been doing this every few months.

I think the only people worried about lock-in or Black Mirror themes are the people who are thinking about these subscriptions in an abstract sense.

It’s really easy to change providers. They’re all improving. Competition is intense.

Post reply on HN