591–600 of 630 posts
Does any of you bother the fact that now you have to pay money in order to do your job? I mean AI model subscriptions. Somehow it feels wrong for me to pay for tools that are trying to replace me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a vague statement that I obviously cannot defend in all interpretations, but what I mean is: the performance of models at making non-trivial applications end-to-end, today, is not practically better than it was a few years ago. They’re (probably) better at making toys or one-shotting simple stuff, and they can definitely (sometimes) crank out shitty code for bigger apps that “works”, but they’re just as terrible…
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
Setting aside the fact that your examples are mostly “replicate this existing thing in language X” [2], again, I’m not saying that the models haven’t gotten better at crapping out code, or that they’re not useful tools. I use them every day. They're great tools, when someone actually intelligent is using them. I also freely concede that they're better tools than a year ago.
The devil is (as always) in the details: how many prompts did it take? what exactly did you have to prompt for? how closely did you look at the code? how closely did you test the end result? Remember that I can, with some amount of prompting, generate perfectly acceptable code for a complex, real-world app, using only GPT 4. But even the newest models generate absolute bullshit on a fairly regular basis. So telling me that you did something complex with an unspecified amount of additional prompting is fine, but not particularly responsive to the original claim.
[1] Copilot, with a liberal sprinkling of ChatGPT in the web UI. Please don’t engage in “you’re holding it wrong” or "you didn't use the right model" with me - I use enough frontier models on a regular basis to have a good sense of their common failings and happy paths. Also, I am trying to do something other than experiment with models, so if I have to switch environments every day, I’m not doing it. If I have to pay for multiple $200 memberships, I’m not doing it. If they require an exact setup to make them “work”, I am unlikely to do it. Finally, if your entire argument here hinges on a point release of a specific model in the last six weeks…yeah. Not gonna take that seriously, because it's the same exact argument, every six weeks.
[2] Nothing really wrong with this -- most programming is an iterative exercise of replicating pre-existing things with minor tweaks -- but we're pretty far into the bailey now, I think. The original argument was that you can one-shot a complex application. Now we're in "I can replicate a large pre-existing thing with repeated hand-holding". Fine, and completely within my own envelope for model performance, but not really the original claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
vive vibe live or it doesnt matter? Maybe Devs should handle copilots as Swiss prana-bindu their shots (Therefore gun laws at a longer timescale) Of course we have to ask aeb if he has ever run into someone who trips (only, of course) while hunting ;) have you?
the french on the good hunter^W vibe coder vs the bad vibe coder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGcoOJKXT8 given that the 3 hares seem to currently lack a signification, I'd be up for squatting? Or would Paul prefer 3 fennecs? Should anyone wish to oppose us, as Bigwig said: "silflay hraka, u embleer rah" a slightly more pragmatic story for shunya as better mousetrap: just as we now routinely have our calculations…
https://www.neatorama.com/2012/05/18/10-facts-you-might-not-...
Re boney quote, that's one heuristic for HN mods
TIL Mozilla would have done better channelling the Finnic fennec (Vs rebranding "pinko"). Globe-wrappin Oxygen Auroras it wasn't.
Haploid fox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inari_%C5%8Ckami#:~:text=The%2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Models keep getting better but the argument I'm critiquing stays the same. So does the comment I critiqued in the sibling comment to yours. I don't know why it's so hard to believe we just haven't tried. I have a Claude subscription. I'm an ML researcher myself. Trust me, I do try. But that last part also makes me keenly aware of their limitations and failures. Frankly I don't trust experts who aren't critiquing thei…
I don't understand what your argument is. It seems to be "people keep saying the models are good"? That's true. They are. And the reason people keep saying it is because the frontier of what they do keeps getting pushed back. Actual, working, useful code completion in the GPT 4 days? Amazing ! It could automatically write entire functions for me ! The ability to write whole classes and utility programs in the Claude…
- Models keep getting better[0]
- Models since GPT 3 are able to replace junior developers
The problem is we've been promised that these employees would be replaced[1] any day now, yet that's not happening.
People forget, it is harder to advance when you're already skilled. It's not hard to go from non-programmer to a junior level. Hard to go from junior to senior. And even harder to advance to staff. The difficulty level only increases. This is true for most skills and this is where there's a lot of naivity. We can be advancing faster while the actual capabilities begin to crawl forward rather than leap.
[0] Implication is not just at coding test style questions but also in more general coding development.
[1] Which has another problem in the pipeline. If you don't have junior devs and are unable to replace both mid and seniors by the time that a junior would advance to a senior then you have built a bubble. There's a lot of big bets being made that this will happen yet the evidence is not pointing that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, writing more vanilla JS instead of React, you're just reinventing the necessary abstractions more verbosely and with a higher risk of duplicate code or mismatching abstractions. Right, but I'm also getting pages that load faster and don't require a build step, making them more convenient to hack on. I'm enjoying that trade-off a lot.
Vanilla JS is also a lot more capable than it was when React was invented. And yeah, you can't beat the iteration speed. I feel like there are dozens of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
I’ve used Sonnet 4.5 and Codex 5 and 5.1, but not in their native environment [1]. Setting aside the fact that your examples are mostly “replicate this existing thing in language X” [2], again, I’m not saying that the models haven’t gotten better at crapping out code, or that they’re not useful tools. I use them every day. They're great tools, when someone actually intelligent is using them. I also freely concede tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
I’ve used Sonnet 4.5 and Codex 5 and 5.1, but not in their native environment [1]. Setting aside the fact that your examples are mostly “replicate this existing thing in language X” [2], again, I’m not saying that the models haven’t gotten better at crapping out code, or that they’re not useful tools. I use them every day. They're great tools, when someone actually intelligent is using them. I also freely concede tha…
For me it is something I can describe in a single casual prompt.
For example I wrote a fully working version of https://tools.nicklothian.com/llm_comparator.html in a single prompt. I refined it and added features with more prompts, but it worked from the start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a vague statement that I obviously cannot defend in all interpretations, but what I mean is: the performance of models at making non-trivial applications end-to-end, today, is not practically better than it was a few years ago. They’re (probably) better at making toys or one-shotting simple stuff, and they can definitely (sometimes) crank out shitty code for bigger apps that “works”, but they’re just as terrible…
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
Are you using Stop hooks to keep Claude running on a task until it completes, or is it doing that by itself?
I mainly eat it clear tasks like "keep going until all these tests pass", but I do keep an eye on it and occasionally tell it to keep going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you spent much time with Codex 5.1 or 5.2 in OpenAI Codex or a Claude Opus 4".5 in Claude code over the last ~6 weeks? I think they represent a meaningful step change in what models can build. For me they are the moment we went from building relatively trivial things unassisted to building quite large and complex system that take multiple hours, often still triggered by a single prompt. Some personal examples fr…
I’ve used Sonnet 4.5 and Codex 5 and 5.1, but not in their native environment [1]. Setting aside the fact that your examples are mostly “replicate this existing thing in language X” [2], again, I’m not saying that the models haven’t gotten better at crapping out code, or that they’re not useful tools. I use them every day. They're great tools, when someone actually intelligent is using them. I also freely concede tha…
Copilot style autocomplete or chatting with a model directly is an entirely different experience from letting the model spend half an hour writing code, running that code and iterating on the result uninterrupted.
Here's an example where I sent a prompt at 2:38pm and it churned away for 7 minutes (executing 17 bash commands), then I gave it another prompt and it churned for half an hour and shipped 7 commits with 160 passing tests: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2025/claude-code-mic...
I completed most of that project on my phone.