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

The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 423 posts

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#331

Post by scottLobster »

ecb_penguin wrote: post #297
democracy wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true, as a mere software developer on a payroll: I might spend 10 minutes doing a task with AI rather than an hour (w/o AI), but trust me - I am going to keep 50 minutes to myself, not deliver 5 more tasks )))) And when I work on my hobby project - having one AI agent crawling around my codebase is like watching a baby in a glassware shop. 10 babies? no thanks!

[flagged]

Show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome. More than once I've had my hand slapped professionally for taking ownership of something my immediate superiors wanted to micromanage. Fine, here I was trying to take something off their plate that was in my wheelhouse, but if that's where they want to draw the line I guess I'll just give less of a shit.

If you actively deny your employees ownership, then the relationship becomes purely transactional.

It's also possible OP is just a bad employee, but I've met far more demoralized good employees than malicious bad ones over the course of my career.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#332

Post by latexr »

throwaway777x wrote: post #262
latexr wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think it’s industry-wide yet, but it will be relatively soon. > Check back in on your assessment in a year. We’ve all read that, and claims grander than that, multiple times over the past few years. And next year someone will say it again.

I think the Deepseek moment that everyone started trying Deepseek and chain of thought was the weekend of 1/25/25 and 1/26/25. The progress lived up to the hype the past year. To say otherwise is to be either intellectually dishonest or you just didn't bother using the tools in order to feel how much progress was made. I just went back to a project that I remember the models struggled with. It felt like years ago but…

> To say otherwise is to be either intellectually dishonest or you just didn't bother using the tools

We can’t have a proper discussion if you start by making wrong and uninformed statements about a stranger and promptly assert that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is either malicious or wilfully ignorant. People can experience the same things and still reach different conclusions or have different opinions.

When the same revolutionary messaging is touted over and over with revised dates whenever the previous prediction hasn’t panned out, anyone is justified in not buying that “this time is different” when that has been said multiple times before.

It’s the boy who cried wolf. Sure, maybe someday it will be true, but save it for when it is instead of repeatedly saying “next year”, “in the next five years”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#333

Post by lunar_mycroft »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #310
lunar_mycroft wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of the middle of the year, there was no increase in publicly available indicators of new startups at all [0]. No change in the trend in steam releases, domain name registrations, app store releases, etc. People might be able to keep the fact that they're a one person team that built the app with AI secret, but they wouldn't be able to keep the fact that they made an app secret. Unless someone has evidence that's c…

Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3. 2 of the 3 existed as entities for more than a year already, but pivoted at least once (both were VC-funded but now doing something very different than what they started with when I first met founders) and ultimately let go of their offshore and contract engineers once AI became good enough some time early last year. Founders basically realized that the quality of…

> Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3.

I'm not saying your three friends/acquaintances don't exist, I'm saying the evidence suggests they aren't representative of a trend. This is consistent with the other evidence we have (e.g. studies which show that LLMs produce at best relatively modest gains in productivity, not enough for a one person team to do the work of even two people.

> I'd also point out that 2025 was a particularly volatile year because of shifts in the political and economic environment so I wouldn't take your stat at face value without considering external factors that might affect the total number of net new business registrations.

Sure, it's always possible that without LLMs there would have been a significant contraction in these metrics. The issue is exactly that though: you can always make that argument. In other words, you've rendered your claims unfalsifiable.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#334

Post by lab14 »

margorczynski wrote: post #252
CharlieDigital wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups? Here's the dirty secret: 1 person AI coding enabled startups don't want their customers to know that they are 1 engineer AI coding startups so they do not expose it or share that info. There is still a lot of negative sentiment associated with this. I know 3 such founders; none would advertise to their customers the extent of their AI usage. There is also a conside…

But eventually people will catch up you can basically create a working product alone with the help of AI. My prediction is that this will lead to a margin free-fall for many software products where the main moat is the software itself. And a lot of SaaS companies will also become redundant when the AI can code up a tailored solution in an hour for free.

Perhaps for extremely basic products. Most non-engineers can barely write and untangle their messy thoughts and you think they can just build a spec for an AI to build a product? Hopefully I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#335

Post by mike_hearn »

dbbk wrote: post #269
mike_hearn wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codex is heavily inspired by Claude Code. They aren't that different. They might diverge more in future.

They are quite different, Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is miles better than Codex

What is it you find makes it much better?

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#336

Post by drbojingle »

tmerr wrote: post #65

This is interesting to hear, but I don't understand how this workflow actually works. I don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week, I need 1 agent that successfully solves the most important problem. I don't understand how you can generate requirements quicky enough to have 10 parallel agents chewing away at meaningful work. I don't understand how you can have any meaningful supervising role over 10 thing…

Prototyping.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#337

Post by CharlieDigital »

lunar_mycroft wrote: post #333
CharlieDigital wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3. 2 of the 3 existed as entities for more than a year already, but pivoted at least once (both were VC-funded but now doing something very different than what they started with when I first met founders) and ultimately let go of their offshore and contract engineers once AI became good enough some time early last year. Founders basically realized that the quality of…

> Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally know 3. I'm not saying your three friends/acquaintances don't exist, I'm saying the evidence suggests they aren't representative of a trend. This is consistent with the other evidence we have (e.g. studies which show that LLMs produce at best relatively modest gains in productivity, not enough for a one person team to do the work of even two people. > I'd also point out…

I'm not saying it's evidence for some larger trend; I'm presenting the reason why single-person teams might not advertise why they are single person and that these teams are not necessarily starting as single person teams, but sometimes collapsing down to single person teams.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#338

Post by sensanaty »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #329
iLoveOncall wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a FAANG and I'm the top reviewer in my team (in terms of number of PRs reviewed). I work on an internal greenfield project, so something really fast moving. For ALL of 2025 I reviewed around 400 PRs. And that already took me an extreme amount of time. Nobody is reviewing this many PRs. I've also raised around 350 PRs in the same year, which is also #1 for my team. AI or not, nobody is raising upwards of 3,…

Reviewing PRs should be for junior engineers, architectural changes, brand new code, or broken tests. You should not review every PR; if you do, you're only doing it out of habit, not because it's necessary. PRs come originally from the idea that there's an outsider trying to merge code into somebody's open source project, and the Benevolent Dictator wants to make sure it's done right. If you work on a corporate SWEn…

> You should trust your team members to write good-enough code...

That's the thing, I trust my teammate, I absolutely do not trust any LLM blindly. So if I were to receive 100 PRs a week and they were all AI-generated, I would have to check all 100 PRs unless I just didn't give a shit about the quality of the code being shit out I guess.

And regardless, whether I trust my teammates or not, it's still good to have 2 eyes on code changes, even if they're simple ones. The majority of the PRs I review are indeed boring (boring is good, in this context) ones where I don't need to say anything, but everyone inevitably makes mistakes, and in my experience the biggest mistakes can be found in the simplest of PRs because people get complacent in those situations.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#339

Post by carefulfungi »

tmerr wrote: post #65

This is interesting to hear, but I don't understand how this workflow actually works. I don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week, I need 1 agent that successfully solves the most important problem. I don't understand how you can generate requirements quicky enough to have 10 parallel agents chewing away at meaningful work. I don't understand how you can have any meaningful supervising role over 10 thing…

My impression is that people who are exploring coordinated multi-agent-coding systems are working towards replacing full teams, not augmenting individuals. "Meaningful supervising role" becomes "automated quality and process control"; "generate requirements quickly" -> we already do this for large human software teams.

If that's the goal, then we shouldn't interpret the current experiment as the destination.

Re: The creator of Claude Code's Claude setup

#340

Post by pc86 »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #321
carlgreene wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of those founders who does not want their customers to know. I have one specific very large customer that is quite an old school company. My software has become pretty pivotal for some of their workflows and if they knew it was one guy on his laptop keeping things afloat with the help of a mysterious AI I am pretty sure they'd reconsider our contract.

Most startup -> enterprise deals are like this in nature. Enterprise buyers are already wary of small startups (for various reasons). A 1 person startup? Wouldn't even get a meeting with the buyers in many cases even if your software was 10x cheaper and exactly solved the business problem.

I worked for a public health care Enterprise early in my career and I make a joke to one of the VPs once about how it seemed like the real career success would be finding one of our pain points as a patient or employee, leaving to start a company that solves that, and selling it back to us. He laughed and said several people had done that but you better take a half dozen executives with you or you'd never get the first meeting no matter how good the product was.
Post reply on HN