551–560 of 634 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in the new world, engineers have to actually be good at capturing and interpreting requirements
In this new world, why stop there? It would be even better if engineers were also medical doctors and held multiple doctorate degrees in mathematics and physics and also were rockstar sales people.
Do software engineers here feel threatened by this? I certainly am. I'm surprised that this topic is almost entirely missing in these threads.
Software developers should. Software engineers shouldn't. My experience is that most developers have little to no understanding about engineering at all: meaning weighting pros and cons, understanding the requirements thoroughly, having a business oriented mindset. Instead they think engineering is about coding practices and technologies to write better code. That's because they focus on the code, the craft, not mone…
Now... increasingly it's like changing a partner just so slightly. I can feel that something is different and it gives me pause. That's probably not a sign of the improvement diminishing. Maybe more so my capability to appreciate them.
I can see how one might get from here to the whole people being upset about 4o thing.
I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?
Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deepl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think copilot is widely considered to be fairly rubbish, your description of agentic coding was also my experience prior to ~Q3 2025, but things have shifted meaningfully since then
Copilot has access to the latest models like Opus 4.6 in agentic mode as well. It's got certain quirks and I prefer a TUI myself but it isn't radically different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It turns into a complete mess without someone that knows what they're doing to steer it. It's an upgrade to autocomplete
Unless you're retiring in less than 5 years this is extremely short sighted.
French military had pioneered a way to make fully interchangeable weapon parts, but the French public fought back in fear of the jobs of the artisans who used to hand-make weapons. Over the next 20 years they completely lost their edge on the battlefield, nothing could be repaired in the field. Other countries embraced the change, could repair anything in the field with cheap and precise spare parts, and soon fostered in the industrial revolution.
The artisans stopped being people who made weapons, the artisans became people who made machines that made weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downside is that you miss the chance to brush up on your math skills, skills that could help you understand and express more complicated requirements. ...This may still be worth it. In any case it will stop being a problem once the human is completely out of the loop. edit: but personally I hate missing out on the chance to learn something.
That would indeed be the case if one has never learned the stuff. And I am all in for not using AI/LLM for homework/assignments. I don't know about others, but when I was in school, they didn't let us use calculators in exams. Today, I know very well how to multiply 98123948 and 109823593 by hand. That doesn't mean I will do it by hand if I have a calculator handy. Also, ancient scholars, most notably Socrates via Pl…
Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deepl…
I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay. Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience. It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature. LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe some day, but as a claude code user it makes enough pretty serious screw ups, even with a very clearly defined plan, that I review everything it produces. You might be able to get away without the review step for a bit, but eventually (and not long) you will be bitten.
I use that to feed back into my spec development and prompting and CI harnesses, not steering in real time. Every mistake is a chance to fix the system so that mistake is less likely or impossible. I rarely fix anything in real time - you review, see issues, fix them in the spec, reset the branch back to zero and try again. Generally, the spec is the part I develop interactively, and then set it loose to go crazy. Th…
Or, really, hacking in "learning", building your knowhow-base.
> But it delivers enormous compounding gains, and you can use your agent to do significant parts of it for you.
Strong yes to both, so strong that it's curious Claude Code, Codex, Claude Cowork, etc., don't yet bake in an explicit knowledge evolution agent curating and evolving their markdown knowledge base:
https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
Unlikely to help with benchmarks. Very likely to improve utility ratings (as rated by outcome improvements over time) from teams using the tools together.
For those following along at home:
This is the return of the "expert system", now running on a generalized "expert system machine".